The Scripture that Trinitarians Falsified!

[BroRando]

Who would reject the Baptism in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ? The Answer may surprise you.  In fulfillment of prophecy Jesus stated, “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

“The Demonstratio Evangelica” by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” That “Name” is Jesus.

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.

How did the Hebrew Book of Matthew 28:18-20 read? “Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name,  teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Hebrew Matthew 28:18-20)

To request a free home Bible Study click here.

[Michel Vromen]

So, make disciples in JESUS name, not in Jehovah's name.... go figure.

[Evacuated]

On 7/20/2017 at 7:02 PM, Brother Rando said:

On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

I have never come across this view in the ministry in all my years, but can see from the internet it is by no means obscure. I am trawling through Watchtower literature now to see if I can find a comment on the anti-trinitarian aspect, have but not unearthed anything yet. As the text is frequently used in support of the Trinity doctorine, many comments appear in refutation.

Very curious and interesting. I am looking forward to others commenting  on this.

[BroRando]

In the Last Days, things in the past will finally come to light in fulfillment of prophecy.  "And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

"Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand." (Daniel 12:10)

"And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, and he had everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people" (Rev 14:6)

Ten days after Jesus ascension to Heaven after giving his commission what do we find Peter doing? "Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." (Acts 2:38)
 

[JW Insider]

On 7/20/2017 at 2:02 PM, Brother Rando said:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

I appreciate the fact that you expanded on this under a new topic heading. I am going to copy my initial response from the other thread "Would you like to know the truth about Hell?"

On 7/19/2017 at 8:15 PM, Brother Rando said:

Yes. Matthew 28:19 was adjusted by the Catholic Church as pagan doctrines were also introduced into God's Word.

[My initial response from last week is in italics below. I'll add some additional points later.]

Yes. I understand it's a common belief, found in many of the modern commentaries. This particular verse has been suspected of textual tampering from the earliest years of textual study and criticism. The problem is that the kind of criticism that would allow us to claim that this particular verse has been tampered with comes along with a lot of "baggage" that would ask us to pick and choose which of hundreds of other verses and passages supposedly "evolved" over the first two or even three centuries after they were first written. We become selective about which passages we believe are correct and which were added or adjusted. We might end up cherry-picking our own favorite themes and doctrines that tickle our ears, and ignore important teachings we don't like.

Textual criticism results in more accurate Bible manuscripts, and the Watch Tower Society relies heavily on textual criticism (done by others) as the apparatus behind choosing an accurate Greek text of the New Testament. But taken to an extreme, the full study of textual criticism also leads to the potential problem of accepting that nearly half the books of the New Testament were not written as eye-witness accounts in the case of the gospels, but versions of prior documents like "Q" and Mark, and that if half of Paul's letters, really are from the apostle Paul then the other half are probably not from Paul at all, they say, based on textual and content clues. They would claim to show that the writer of John could not have been the same as the writer of Revelation. The same sources that claim that Matthew 28 contains glosses would allow us to dismiss 1 and 2 Peter as books from the second century. And hundreds of other supposed "facts" that would weaken our ability to base much of anything on the Bible itself. We would all be on our own trying to determine which of the inspired utterances were really true or not.

Of course, we have no problem with the value of such studies to determine facts about the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha, the Elephantine papyri, or the Gnostic papyri, but some things are still sacrosanct. There is value in such studies, only up to a point.

What I was trying to say is that, YES, it's been a suspected gloss not just in modern commentaries, but even, as I said, from the earliest years of textual commentary and criticism (meaning especially, Eusebius, who owned and had access to the most important libraries of documents from the previous two or three centuries of Christianity). Eusebius had his own prejudices about the Trinitarian formula, but he was also a very astute observer of the process of canonization, living at the last possible time period when the choices for canonical Bible manuscripts could still be considered "in flux." 

What I was also trying to say is that accepting the major theories of textual criticism involved here, are of a type that we have to be the most careful with. These are content and subject-based criticisms, which make a lot of use of the idea of an evolving theology. As you know, the Watch Tower Society makes much use of the scholarship based on such criticism where it relates to the evolving doctrine of the Trinity and especially how textual tampering might have taken place. The kinds of tools that help restore the most likely original manuscript when variations are found is related to this study, because variations were often inserted based on evolving doctrine. But it's another layer of textual-historical criticism that attempts to discover glosses based on evolving doctrine alone.

Eusebius was an Arian (rather than an "orthodox" Trinitarian) and we do not have the original that he supposedly quotes from. It could very well have just been a variation that Eusebius preferred because any mention of the Father, Son and holy spirit together was probably being seized on by Trinitarians. The "simplified gospel" for purposes of mnemonics was often abbreviated in early Christianity to the form of a kerygma, and the methods of explaining an abbreviated theology and Christology was also very likely an explanation requiring "The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit." That "formula" was a good preaching "kerygma" for making points about Christ, points about baptism, and points about the kingdom, etc. If it were used by Jesus in the original, it could also provide a foundation for discussing our relationship with the Father, and our ability to come before his "presence" and how it has continued and will continue through the ages. This is implied in Jesus' words: "Look I am with you all the days until the conclusion [synteleia] of the system of things."

[by "kerygma" I mean not just "preaching" but the stype of abbreviated "bullet points" of the good news that could be easily remembered and then expanded upon in preaching, such as: "Jesus Christ, born of Mary, baptized by John, tried and killed under Pilate, resurrected by God, and now at God's right hand"  or similar abbreviated gospels. There is evidence inside and outside the Bible that early Christians used such "kerygma."]

So, I'm saying that it COULD have been part of the original. I think the Watch Tower Society would be very hesitant to dismiss it for several reasons. One is the danger of relying too much on this type of textual historical criticism. If this is suspect, then everything becomes suspect wherever there is a slight change of wording between the gospels, or between earlier and later letters of Paul or the pastoral letters. Another reason the WTS would be hesitant is because it would admit manuscript tampering during the second century, which we already are aware of,  but we would not expect Trinitarian-oriented tampering to have happened so early in the immediate century after the Matthew was written.

By the way, textual studies of the same type that make some scholars dismiss certain texts as tampered with, have also (in some other cases) made those same scholars dismiss various conclusions of Eusebius. The "two-witness" rule has a corollary in textual studies, too.

I was hesitant myself to add my own view here because it's outside the norm for Witnesses. I have no problem supporting the verse as it appears in the NWT and pretty much all other translations and manuscripts known (which almost all come from after the council of Nicaea). I don't think it supports the Trinity in any way, so it doesn't bother me as a true statement about what Christians should preach. But I also personally believe that Jesus' original words were more likely to have matched the way Eusebius quoted them so often. This does not imply that I agree with all the other conclusions of Eusebius and those who have studied manuscripts giving credence to everything that Eusebius claims.

My earlier comments also were intended to reflect the danger of using this particular verse as a proof that Jesus had not spoken about "hell" (hades and gehenna).

[BroRando]

Yes and scripture should interpret scripture. Forgetting all the criticisms that lay outside the scriptures one could use the terminology found in (Matthew 28:19) in its current state. However trying to finding another witness of this scripture comes up empty. No other verse supports a baptism in a generic formula  of a triune person.  

However, they are many scriptures to how the Apostles baptized followers stating with Peter in the Book of Acts. "Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." (Acts 2:38)

None of the followers in the first century baptized in a generic formula.  It was always in the Name of Jesus. "But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized." (Acts 8:12)

This alone is more than enough evidence, but I must admit that criticisms do carry some weight for others have researched it, and they came to the same conclusion I have. "The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723: Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”"

 

[BroRando]

"Eusebius was an Arian (rather than an "orthodox" Trinitarian) and we do not have the original that he supposedly quotes from."

Eusebius (265 A.D. -- 339 A.D.) as proclaimed Bishop of Caesarea had access to the famed Library of Caesarea and thus references Matthew 28:19 from more ancient manuscripts housed therein than are available to us today.

Book III, Chapter 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157

Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it: How, pray, can we preach to Romans: How can we argue with the Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks: How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldaeans, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"

But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my Name." He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: "for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations."

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

None of the followers in the first century baptized in a generic formula.  It was always in the Name of Jesus. "But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized." (Acts 8:12)

This is true. And it's convincing up to a point. After all, Jesus had just given them a command under the highest "authority" in the universe. Who would have heard such a command in those very words and then disobeyed it by even one "jot and tittle"?

But neither do Witnesses take it as a "formula" but only as a true statement, even if slightly expanded in meaning from the exact words Jesus used. Matthew also is the only gospel to use the term "parousia" in the question asked of Jesus by the disciples leading up to the "Olivet" sermon. This doesn't mean that it wasn't used at all in the context of the question, but it can also mean that Matthew himself was inspired to use ideas that the disciples had in mind even if not expressed literally. (Matthew himself could have been one of those disciples and would have known what they had in mind.) We know by comparing the gospels that what appears to be exact quotes are only quotes of "meaning" not verbatim quotes. 

So even though it's still possible that Jesus used the words or at least the meaning as they now appear, I agree that it makes more sense that the subsequent actions and statements of the disciples give evidence that Eusebius used the more accurate version.

[BroRando]

I'm in agreement to which what you are saying and continue exploring the scriptures. On a side note, the person who coined the terminology and name the 'trinity' did not believe the trinity in it's form taught today.  In a debate with a Modalist, Tertullian made the point that some say that Genesis 1:1 should be rendered, "In the beginning God made for himself a Son."  

Interesting debate to say the least..... WHY?  Because we can find scripture backing that saying.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" (Colossians 1:15)  
"These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:" (Rev 3:14)    "In the beginning was the Word," (John 1:1)
 

 

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Brother Rando said:

"In the beginning God made for himself a Son."

Which could just as likely have been supposed by working backwards from the sentiment found in John and Colossians, etc.

The wording in John 1 might also allude to some Jewish "Wisdom" poetry we no longer have access to. Or even an outgrowth of the poetry that already exists, such as in the way Jeremiah appears to allude to Genesis 1:1 poetically:

Jeremiah 10:12-16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹² It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. ¹³ When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth;

(Proverbs 3:19, 20) 19 Jehovah founded the earth in wisdom. He solidly established the heavens in discernment. 20 By his knowledge the watery deeps were split apart And the cloudy skies dripped with dew.

(Proverbs 8:22-31) 22 Jehovah produced me [Wisdom] as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. 25 Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, 28 When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, 29 When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men.

Then again, the multiple references to a personified wisdom in these allusions to Genesis 1:1 might be evidence of a one-time reference to a Logos/Word/Wisdom. But the fact that it could also be referenced without any such reference may be evidence that what we have is exactly what was originally written:

(Isaiah 45:18) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

[BroRando]

That's extraordinary insight!  The reference to (Genesis 1:1) is actually the earth before the Six Creative Days.  We see the earth already existed. "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)  So there had to be Creation before (Genesis 1:1).  

The Beginning of Creation is actually the Word/Logos/Wisdom of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.  This one was in the beginning with God.  All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence" (John 1:1-3)

Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs is spoken of in the feminine sense as she, not that the Son is female, but rather a Creation in being brought forth or begotten. A closer look at John 1:1 will bear this out.  "In the beginning was the Word," (John 1:1)  We see "the beginning" is describing when the Word was. But further study into Koine Greek gives us more evidence the Word was Created. The word 'Beginning' is actually a feminine noun is describing the Word.  Take a look at this finding:  

Strong's Concordance

arché: beginning, origin

Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ                                                                                                                                                         Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine                                                                                                                                                   Transliteration: arché Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')                                                                                                                                               Short Definition: ruler, beginning                                                                                                                                                                   Definition: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.

746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial(starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").

 

 

 

 

[NicholasMarks]

In the beginning was the 'word' and Jesus is the 'word' made flesh. So everything Jesus did is a personification of the hidden code that controls the universe...a code that Almighty God is the controller of and by which he kick-started planet Earth out of its void, tidally-locked state, back into a life-supporting planet by, using the same chemistry that already lay dormant within the planet. It's all electric mechanics, you see...the same electrics that all atoms and all stars are made out of...the same electrics that Almighty God, being a Spirit, is the personification of, the same spiritual/electric mechanics that Jesus taught us about, and the same electronics that righteousness thrives upon...we just have to absorb that 'word' accurately, as Jesus intended. Good advice seeing that the approach of Wormwood is also controlled by electronics and only Jesus Christ and Almighty God, Jehovah, know how to best protect ourselves from its many tendrils of destruction.