Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism

[larrylyates]

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951), II, 384, 389 'The formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus [Christ] or some synonymous phrase."

Interpreter's Dictionary of tht Bible (1962), I, 351 The evidence . . . suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (1898), I, 241:"[One could conclude that] the original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.’”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435 “The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53i :"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ” . . . or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

JAMES HASTINGS: "It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized 'in” or 'into' the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit" (DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Page 88).

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPAEDIA: "The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost" (llth Ed., Vol. 3, Pages 365-366).

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS: "Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus.' Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Page 53).

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: "Christian baptism was administered by using the words 'in the Name of Jesus.1 The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used" (Vol. 2, Pages 377-378, 389)

"NAME was an ancient synonym for "Person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus' Name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ's." (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: "With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism 'in the Name of Jesus.' Baptism in titles cannot Be found in the first centuries..." (McGraw Hill Publishing, Page 59).

[seekerman]

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951), II, 384, 389 'The formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus [Christ] or some synonymous phrase."

Interpreter's Dictionary of tht Bible (1962), I, 351 The evidence . . . suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (1898), I, 241:"[One could conclude that] the original form of words was 'into the name of Jesus Christ' or 'the Lord Jesus.’”

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435 “The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53i :"Persons were baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ” . . . or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

JAMES HASTINGS: "It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice to the words of Christ in Matthew 28:19, but the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which so far as our information goes, baptized 'in” or 'into' the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit" (DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Page 88).

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPAEDIA: "The triune and trinity formula was not uniformly used from the beginning, and up until the third century, baptism in the Name of Christ only was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to St. Cyprian, said that baptism in the Name of Christ was valid. But Catholic missionaries, by omitting one or more persons of the Trinity when they were baptized, were anathematized by the Roman church. Now the formula of Rome is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost" (llth Ed., Vol. 3, Pages 365-366).

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS: "Persons were baptized at first in the Name of Jesus Christ, or 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus.' Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" (Page 53).

HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: "Christian baptism was administered by using the words 'in the Name of Jesus.1 The use of a Trinity formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used" (Vol. 2, Pages 377-378, 389)

"NAME was an ancient synonym for "Person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus' Name became His personal property. "Ye are Christ's." (Acts 1:15; Revelation 3:4; I Corinthians 3:23).

NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: "With regard to the form used for Baptism in the early church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew (28:19) speaks of the Trinitarian formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3) speak only of Baptism 'in the Name of Jesus.' Baptism in titles cannot Be found in the first centuries..." (McGraw Hill Publishing, Page 59).

But not a single solitary reference you've given were oneness pentecostals with their three-step salvation doctrine. You'll not find oneness pentecostal three step salvation theology until after 1913.

[larrylyates]

But not a single solitary reference you've given were oneness pentecostals with their three-step salvation doctrine. You'll not find oneness pentecostal three step salvation theology until after 1913.

Don't recall that being the subject of the post.

[seekerman]

Don't recall that being the subject of the post.

Isn't Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[larrylyates]

Isn't Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

What does your Bible tell you. My opinion doesn't count.

[seekerman]

What does your Bible tell you. My opinion doesn't count.

You were trying to say something when you posted your references. Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[Nitehawk013]

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

[larrylyates]

You were trying to say something when you posted your references. Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

The real question is why none of the advocates for a Matthew 28:19 baptismal "formula" are unable to find a single instance of it in the early church. Seems that Jesus' Name was the only one used.

[seekerman]

The real question is why none of the advocates for a Matthew 28:19 baptismal "formula" are unable to find a single instance of it in the early church. Seems that Jesus' Name was the only one used.

You're avoiding the issue. Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[seekerman]

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

Is it a salvation issue? In other words did the Matt 28:19 formula negate their salvation or did it impact their salvation at all?

[larrylyates]

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

The problem with that view is it leaves the Apostles in the unenviable position of seeming to have ignored Jesus' words on the day of Pentecost, long before Matthew was written.

The fact is that Jesus gave them clear instructions and they followed those instruction to the letter by baptizing in the Name of Jesus. You rightly point out that what we find in Matthew 28 are titles. What is the singular Name, they describe?

[Nitehawk013]

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

[larrylyates]

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

I misplaced my punctuation. It would be better phrased as 'on the day of Pentecost, they ignored Jesus' word." Sorry for the confusion.

[larrylyates]

You're avoiding the issue. Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

Not avoiding anything except a fruitless discussion. Consider it following Paul's advice to Timothy.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 (NASB)
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”— 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.

[seekerman]

Not avoiding anything except a fruitless discussion. Consider it following Paul's advice to Timothy.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 (NASB)
20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”— 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith.

Yes, you're avoiding the issue. Once more....were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[larrylyates]

Yes, you're avoiding the issue. Once more....were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

[seekerman]

This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

Why are you avoiding the issue? Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[larrylyates]

This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

Since the reformation days of Martin Luther, the Lord has brought a progressive revelation of truth to the church. This unfolding of restored understanding of himself and His Word is for the purpose of returning His Church to her original anointing, authority and mission. As God restores the foundational gifts and ministries there comes a shift in our understanding and doctrine.

What amazes me about the critics of the Apostolic Movement is their affirmation of progressive revelation on the one hand and their denial of it as it applies to Oneness Pentecostalism.

While there are no new revelations, there is restored understanding of the scriptures. Luther’s comprehension of salvation by faith was not a new revelation. It was there all the time, but the church had lost sight of it. God uses men such as this to call the church back to forgotten truths. We believe the reformation is not over. The greatest restoration is happening now!

What sets the Apostolic Church apart from the rest of Christendom is not merely its emphasis on Acts 2:38 salvation and worship of the One True and Living God in Jesus Christ but also a unique approach to scripture. Our actual goal as Christians is to be genuinely Apostolic. We strive to “weed out” traditions and doctrines of men which were added later. Basically, we try to take what Luther started to its logical conclusion, true biblical reformation. We see many doctrines and beliefs as not Apostolic, but as a later development. Even my learned seminary professors would agree with this, but they put much authority in church history. They see the goal of the Bible scholar/theologian to develop the seed left by the writers of the New Testament. They think it arrogant to even question the wisdom of the church fathers. We on the other hand see our job description as one of recovery of truth which has been lost or distorted, to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). We are at heart, restorationists, trying to help restore the Church to her original belief and power. Of course we don’t want to ignore what others have written or said about the Bible, but we understand this merely to be the thinking of fallible men. I believe that the church has gotten away from what the apostles taught in many respects and that we need to get it back. We need to stop seeing the church in Acts as in a “baby stage,” and start seeing it as the model upon which to base our belief and practice. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and practice, will we experience true New Testament power.

[larrylyates]

Why are you avoiding the issue? Were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

I'm sorry I mistakenly thought I was clear. Let me try again.
This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

[larrylyates]

Even in the First Century the slide into apostasy had already begun.

Colossians 2:8-10 (KJV)
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

2 Peter 2:1 (NASB)
2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Jude 1:3 (NASB)
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

In our quest for revival and restoration, we recognize that before we can fully experience New Testament power, we must first return to New Testament patterns, principles and priorities. When the patterns are right, the Glory of God will manifest and His power will be released. The early Believers "continued steadfastly in the Apostle's Doctrine, in fellowship, the breaking of bread and in prayers." (Acts 2:42). As God restores these apostolic truths to His Church today, He is laying a foundation that can be built upon securely.

We must acknowledge that God is neither explained by nor limited to any set of doctrinal beliefs or statements. There is as well the danger, as church history has shown, of men limiting themselves by such articles, becoming totally unprepared to advance in God when the light of recovered truth begins to shine. We see the result of this in the many denominations and organizations around us. The trend among some, however, of declaring doctrine to be unnecessary or unimportant, is absolutely contrary to scripture. The Bible is clear on the importance of doctrine. It must not only be sound, pure and scriptural, but it must also be obeyed.

All beliefs have their roots in various teachings, true or false. These doctrines, when believed and practiced, determine not only our actions, but also our character and ultimately our destiny. Many otherwise sincere people have been led into deception. Thus, it is essential for us to be fully established in the doctrines as set forth in the scriptures. When a believer is established in the Apostle's doctrine they will no longer be blown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:4) or become ensnared by the doctrines of demons (I Tim. 4:1).

—It does matter who and what we believe! --

(Titus 1:9,2:11; II Tim. 3; 14-17; I Tim. 4:6,13,16, 6:1-3)
Apostolic Doctrine
In this age of “easy believeism” what the world needs most is the reality of Jesus Christ and the true Gospel.
True Biblical Christianity is Pentecostal, Apostolic and Oneness.
We believe in the one everlasting True God who has revealed Himself as the Father in creation: through the Son in redemption; and as the Holy Ghost at work in the lives of believers. The basic and fundamental doctrine of most Apostolic Churches and organizations is the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

[Pliny]

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

I would be interested in your evidence...

If the "nevertheless" is your evidence it is not evidence at all but fanciful speculation.

[seekerman]

I'm sorry I mistakenly thought I was clear. Let me try again.
This is an absolute tenet of Apostolic Theology and the undeniable teaching of scripture.

Why would ANY true believer want to avoid being baptized in the only saving Name?

No, you're not clear. Yet again....were you suggesting that Jesus name baptism is one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?

[seekerman]

Since the reformation days of Martin Luther, the Lord has brought a progressive revelation of truth to the church. This unfolding of restored understanding of himself and His Word is for the purpose of returning His Church to her original anointing, authority and mission. As God restores the foundational gifts and ministries there comes a shift in our understanding and doctrine.

What amazes me about the critics of the Apostolic Movement is their affirmation of progressive revelation on the one hand and their denial of it as it applies to Oneness Pentecostalism.

While there are no new revelations, there is restored understanding of the scriptures. Luther’s comprehension of salvation by faith was not a new revelation. It was there all the time, but the church had lost sight of it. God uses men such as this to call the church back to forgotten truths. We believe the reformation is not over. The greatest restoration is happening now!

What sets the Apostolic Church apart from the rest of Christendom is not merely its emphasis on Acts 2:38 salvation and worship of the One True and Living God in Jesus Christ but also a unique approach to scripture. Our actual goal as Christians is to be genuinely Apostolic. We strive to “weed out” traditions and doctrines of men which were added later. Basically, we try to take what Luther started to its logical conclusion, true biblical reformation. We see many doctrines and beliefs as not Apostolic, but as a later development. Even my learned seminary professors would agree with this, but they put much authority in church history. They see the goal of the Bible scholar/theologian to develop the seed left by the writers of the New Testament. They think it arrogant to even question the wisdom of the church fathers. We on the other hand see our job description as one of recovery of truth which has been lost or distorted, to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). We are at heart, restorationists, trying to help restore the Church to her original belief and power. Of course we don’t want to ignore what others have written or said about the Bible, but we understand this merely to be the thinking of fallible men. I believe that the church has gotten away from what the apostles taught in many respects and that we need to get it back. We need to stop seeing the church in Acts as in a “baby stage,” and start seeing it as the model upon which to base our belief and practice. Only when we return to New Testament patterns, principles and practice, will we experience true New Testament power.

The truth is the so-called, self-labeled 'apostolics' are experiencing no more power than those Christians they look down on. The Church of Jesus Christ wasn't invisible, dead, buried or absent for almost 2000 years, until the sudden appearance of the oneness pentecostal sect, and the Spirit of God was moving mightily in the decades preceding the latter day sect. If you simply look to the 1800s you'll see the Church of Jesus Christ growing and flourishing apart from oneness pentecostalism.

[MarieA27]

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

This could only happen if the disciples were leaning on their own interpretations and understandings and not God's. As if God wasn't with Peter when he discipled the first one, and then God wasn't opening up the understanding of the others so they'll understand the scriptures as in what God intended for that scripture to mean etc.,

If they were looking at it all natural, then yeah, they can be deceived...

[Praxeas]

Isn't Jesus name baptism one of the unalterable requirements for a person to be saved in oneness pentecostal theology? Or were the references you gave simply best practice for baptism but not necessary?
Baptism in Jesus name is a biblical precedent. He was quoting verses showing the early church followed that precedent

[Praxeas]

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.
You are referring to the Didache. It's hard to prove it's first century nor that it doesn't contain interpolations

[seekerman]

Baptism in Jesus name is a biblical precedent. He was quoting verses showing the early church followed that precedent

Some did, some didn't. The question is, does it matter? Was baptism in Jesus name a salvation issue or just a best practice issue in the early church?

[Praxeas]

Some did, some didn't. The question is, does it matter? Was baptism in Jesus name a salvation issue or just a best practice issue in the early church?
Why does it have to matter in order to discuss? Did anyone ask you if it matters in your thread about what makes you sick?

BTW don't you agree what God's word says is important?

[seekerman]

Why does it have to matter in order to discuss? Did an protest k you if it matters in your thread about what makes you sick?

BTW don't you agree what God's word says is important?

Folks made observations concerning what made them sick. I certainly didn't protest when folks said they liked boiled okra. My position is to eat it if you like it.

When did encyclopedia brittanica become the word of God?

[Praxeas]

Folks made observations concerning what made them sick. I certainly didn't protest when folks said they liked boiled okra. My position is to eat it if you like it.

When did encyclopedia brittanica become the word of God?
So then why can't we discuss history?

When did I say it was the word of God? The topic relates to what the word of God says or what the early church believed was what the word of God says

[seekerman]

So then why can't we discuss history?

When did I say it was the word of God? The topic relates to what the word of God says or what the early church believed was what the word of God says

By all means discuss history. Two things will be quickly revealed, 1) there were various early historical views on baptism and 2) the Church of Jesus Christ was alive and well apart from the baptismal disagreements in the Church. Still is.

[Pliny]

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

I would be interested in your evidence...

If the "nevertheless" is your evidence it is not evidence at all but fanciful speculation.

Apparently this has not been seen or there is no evidence for a first century baptism in the titles.

[larrylyates]

I don't have any problem with it. It is fact. There were groups who baptized in the titles in the first century and before the church had more widespread access to more complete "canon" of scripture. It's right there to find in history whether many of my fellow OP's want to deny it or not. It isn't a problem to me at all.

You personally have a problem with it because of how YOU think it implicates the early Apostles and church fathers. And Jesus' words on Pentecost? Do you mean Peter's? Jesus ascended 10 days prior to Pentecost.

Nevertheless, I still have no issue with this. Assume Peter disciples someone. That man goes to another country and he disciples another man. This man is now once removed form the original. NOw this man comes upon a copy of Matthew, but not Luke or Acts. Now he discples another man. This new man is now twice removed from Peter, has likely never met Peter, and has only heard stories of Peter. He does however have a copy of Matthew which says baptize in the titles. If he takes the Sola Scriptura approach, Matthew beats rumors of Peter saying Baptize in Jesus name at Pentecost.

You have absolutely no historical precedent for your comments regarding First Century practices.

Concerning the well known Didache or "Teaching of the Apostles." of which only one copy, dated 1056, survives. Scholars agree that it was certainly not written by the twelve apostles, but it claims to reflect their teaching. It is not a first-century document, as often supposed. Internal and external evidence reveal that it is no earlier than 120 and perhaps considerably later. It contains doctrinal errors that do not reflect the original teachings of the church. It includes both the Jesus Name formula and the later Matthew 28 formula. The consensus of conservative trinitarian scholars is that the latter is an interpolation added much later.

As to your other comments, they show an absolute disregard for the authority and inspiration of scripture and the method by which the various teachings were circulated and ultimately gathered. Neither the facts of history or the teaching of scripture warrants your conclusions.

[larrylyates]

But not a single solitary reference you've given were oneness pentecostals with their three-step salvation doctrine. You'll not find oneness pentecostal three step salvation theology until after 1913.

You can find the message of salvation in Acts 2:38 and in numerous other places within Acts as well as several allusions to it throughout the Epistles. The fact that it originated with "Oneness Pentecostals," is the simple truth of scripture. They were Born Again at Pentecost and most certainly believed in One God.

[FlamingZword]

By all means discuss history. Two things will be quickly revealed, 1) there were various early historical views on baptism and 2) the Church of Jesus Christ was alive and well apart from the baptismal disagreements in the Church. Still is.

The original teaching on Baptism is the one spoken on the first day of the Church, in Acts 2:38.
This is the first and original baptism
It was spoken by Peter the Apostle of Jesus
Peter had just received the Spirit of Truth that guides into all truth.
Any other view on baptism is erroneous.

[seekerman]

You can find the message of salvation in Acts 2:38 and in numerous other places within Acts as well as several allusions to it throughout the Epistles. The fact that it originated with "Oneness Pentecostals," is the simple truth of scripture. They were Born Again at Pentecost and most certainly believed in One God.

The simple fact of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it's never been defeated, invisible, cowering or absent for 2000 years. The simple fact is that the Church is built upon Jesus Christ and didn't suddenly appear in 1913 after almost 2000 years of being gone, invisible, dead and buried as one would have to believe if one views oneness pentecostalism (circa 1913) as the sole representative of the Church of Jesus Christ today.

The simple truth, like it or not, accept it or not, is that the Church of Jesus Christ is, and has been for 2000 years, much much larger than the latter day (circa 1913) oneness pentecostal sect.

[seekerman]

The original teaching on Baptism is the one spoken on the first day of the Church, in Acts 2:38.

Jesus words concerning baptism in Matt 28:19 were....oh wait....you rewrote that. Never mind. :)

This is the first and original baptism
It was spoken by Peter the Apostle of Jesus
Peter had just received the Spirit of Truth that guides into all truth.
Any other view on baptism is erroneous.

Are the words a man speaks over another one during baptism, and who has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ themselves, a determinate of the salvation of the individual being baptized?

A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.....but I doubt very seriously I get it. :)

[larrylyates]

Jesus words concerning baptism in Matt 28:19 were....oh wait....you rewrote that. Never mind. :)



Are the words a man speaks over another one during baptism, and who has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ themselves, a determinate of the salvation of the individual being baptized?

A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.....but I doubt very seriously I get it. :)

It is easy for people to overlook the fact that Matthew was present on the Day of Pentecost and felt no need to correct Peter's inspired interpretation of Matthew 28:19. Never mind the fact that neither book would be written for several years, there simply is no discrepancy. The singular "Name' of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. The Apostles knew this and thus the command given in Acts 2:38, and subsequent chapters to baptize in the Name of Jesus. It's not an, "either/or" situation for both passages refer to the same Name.

As to your other question? Readers will find the book, The New Birth by David K Bernard a very helpful resource. Dr. Bernard is a noted expert in the study of Apostolic Theology in general, and more specifically, the field of Christology.

The following is taken from pages 166-170 of his book:

Oral Invocation of the Name
Some contend that “baptism in the name of Jesus” means only in the authority and power of Jesus, and does not mean the name should be uttered orally as part of the baptismal formula. However, the following evidence shows that “in the name of Jesus” is the actual formula:

(1) Baptism in the name of Jesus does mean baptism with His power and authority, but the way to invoke His power and authority is to invoke His name in faith. The authority represented by a name is always invoked by actually using the proper name. All the discussion of power and authority cannot obscure one point: when we actually use a name at baptism it should be the name Jesus.

(2) The Bible reveals that the name Jesus was orallyinvoked at baptism. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Here is a biblical command to call the Lord’s name (Jesus) at baptism.

Some argue that in this verse only the baptismal candidate called the name of Jesus, not the administrator. This is debatable, but even so the name Jesus was orally invoked. In general, the baptizer normally invokes the name, but the candidate may also call on the name of Jesus as well, for baptism’s validity depends on the candidate’s faith, not on the baptizer’s faith.

An oral calling did occur, for the Greek word rendered “calling” is epikaleomai, which means “to call over” or “to invoke.” This is the same word that describes Stephen’s oral prayer to God: “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). The same verb also appears in Acts 15:17: “the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord,” and in James 2:7: “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?” Both passages imply a specific time when the name of Jesus was invoked over believers, which occurred at water baptism. Other translations of James 2:7 are as follows: “[Do] not they blaspheme the good name called on you?” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament); “Do not they defame the noble name which hath been invoked upon you?” (Rotherham); “Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?” (TAB).
Thus the Bible states in one verse and indicates in several others that the name of Jesus is to be orally invoked at baptism.

(3) The clear, common sense reading of the baptismal passages leads one to believe that “in the name of Jesus” is the baptismal formula. That is the natural, literal reading, and a person must use questionable and twisted methods of biblical interpretation to deny that the words mean what they appear to mean. If this is not a formula, it is strange that it appears so many times as if it were a formula without any explanation to the contrary.

(4) In other situations, “in the name of Jesus” means orally uttering the name Jesus. Jesus told His disciples they would pray for the sick in His name (Mark 16:17-18), and James said we should pray for the sick “in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). When Peter prayed for a lame man, he actually used the name, for he said, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk” (Acts 3:6). Then he explained that the man was healed “by the name of Jesus” (Acts 3:16; 4:10). In other words, when the Early Church prayed for the sick in the name of Jesus, they actually uttered the name Jesus. Likewise, when the Early Church baptized in the name of Jesus, they actually uttered the name Jesus as part of the baptismal formula.

(5) If “in the name of Jesus” does not represent a formula, then the Bible gives no formula for Christian baptism. The only other candidate for a baptismal formula would be the wording of Matthew 28:19. However, if “in the name of Jesus” does not teach a formula, then neither does “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” for the grammatical structure is identical in both verses. If “in the name” means “by the authority of” without literally invoking a name, then neither verse gives a formula.

However, we do not believe Jesus left us without guidance on such an important subject. Water baptism is very important, so it is inconceivable that the Bible would not give adequate instructions as to its administration. If we do not have a formula, what distinguishes Christian baptism from heathen baptisms, Jewish proselyte baptism, or John’s baptism?

If there is no formula, or if the formula does not matter, why did Paul rebaptize John’s disciples in the name of Jesus? No reputable scholar holds that baptismal formula is irrelevant or that the Bible gives no direction regarding a baptismal formula. Yet, if “in the name of” does not describe a formula, we have none.

(6) Theologians and church historians recognize that the Book of Acts does give the baptismal formula of the Early Church. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says with respect to baptism in the New Testament, “The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase: there is no evidence for theuse of the trine name.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the three-fold name, but ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’”

Some argue that “in the name of Jesus” is not a formula since the various baptismal accounts use different descriptive phrases, such as “in the name of Jesus Christ,” “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and “in the name of the Lord.” However, all these phrases are equivalent, for they all describe the same name, which is Jesus. Lord and Christ are simply titles that distinguish the Lord Jesus Christ from any others who might have the name Jesus, but the unique name of the Son of God is Jesus. Even Matthew 28:19 describes the baptismal formula as being in the Name of Jesus.

[seekerman]

It is easy for people to overlook the fact that Matthew was present on the Day of Pentecost and felt no need to correct Peter's inspired interpretation of Matthew 28:19. Never mind the fact that neither book would be written for several years, there simply is no discrepancy. The singular "Name' of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. The Apostles knew this and thus the command given in Acts 2:38, and subsequent chapters to baptize in the Name of Jesus. It's not an, "either/or" situation for both passages refer to the same Name.

As to your other question? Readers will find the book, The New Birth by David K Bernard a very helpful resource. Dr. Bernard is a noted expert in the study of Apostolic Theology in general, and more specifically, the field of Christology.

The following is taken from pages 166-170 of his book:

Oral Invocation of the Name
Some contend that “baptism in the name of Jesus” means only in the authority and power of Jesus, and does not mean the name should be uttered orally as part of the baptismal formula. However, the following evidence shows that “in the name of Jesus” is the actual formula:

(1) Baptism in the name of Jesus does mean baptism with His power and authority, but the way to invoke His power and authority is to invoke His name in faith. The authority represented by a name is always invoked by actually using the proper name. All the discussion of power and authority cannot obscure one point: when we actually use a name at baptism it should be the name Jesus.

(2) The Bible reveals that the name Jesus was orallyinvoked at baptism. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Here is a biblical command to call the Lord’s name (Jesus) at baptism.

Some argue that in this verse only the baptismal candidate called the name of Jesus, not the administrator. This is debatable, but even so the name Jesus was orally invoked. In general, the baptizer normally invokes the name, but the candidate may also call on the name of Jesus as well, for baptism’s validity depends on the candidate’s faith, not on the baptizer’s faith.

An oral calling did occur, for the Greek word rendered “calling” is epikaleomai, which means “to call over” or “to invoke.” This is the same word that describes Stephen’s oral prayer to God: “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). The same verb also appears in Acts 15:17: “the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord,” and in James 2:7: “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?” Both passages imply a specific time when the name of Jesus was invoked over believers, which occurred at water baptism. Other translations of James 2:7 are as follows: “[Do] not they blaspheme the good name called on you?” (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament); “Do not they defame the noble name which hath been invoked upon you?” (Rotherham); “Is it not they who slander and blaspheme that precious name by which you are distinguished and called [the name of Christ invoked in baptism]?” (TAB).
Thus the Bible states in one verse and indicates in several others that the name of Jesus is to be orally invoked at baptism.

(3) The clear, common sense reading of the baptismal passages leads one to believe that “in the name of Jesus” is the baptismal formula. That is the natural, literal reading, and a person must use questionable and twisted methods of biblical interpretation to deny that the words mean what they appear to mean. If this is not a formula, it is strange that it appears so many times as if it were a formula without any explanation to the contrary.

(4) In other situations, “in the name of Jesus” means orally uttering the name Jesus. Jesus told His disciples they would pray for the sick in His name (Mark 16:17-18), and James said we should pray for the sick “in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). When Peter prayed for a lame man, he actually used the name, for he said, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk” (Acts 3:6). Then he explained that the man was healed “by the name of Jesus” (Acts 3:16; 4:10). In other words, when the Early Church prayed for the sick in the name of Jesus, they actually uttered the name Jesus. Likewise, when the Early Church baptized in the name of Jesus, they actually uttered the name Jesus as part of the baptismal formula.

(5) If “in the name of Jesus” does not represent a formula, then the Bible gives no formula for Christian baptism. The only other candidate for a baptismal formula would be the wording of Matthew 28:19. However, if “in the name of Jesus” does not teach a formula, then neither does “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” for the grammatical structure is identical in both verses. If “in the name” means “by the authority of” without literally invoking a name, then neither verse gives a formula.

However, we do not believe Jesus left us without guidance on such an important subject. Water baptism is very important, so it is inconceivable that the Bible would not give adequate instructions as to its administration. If we do not have a formula, what distinguishes Christian baptism from heathen baptisms, Jewish proselyte baptism, or John’s baptism?

If there is no formula, or if the formula does not matter, why did Paul rebaptize John’s disciples in the name of Jesus? No reputable scholar holds that baptismal formula is irrelevant or that the Bible gives no direction regarding a baptismal formula. Yet, if “in the name of” does not describe a formula, we have none.

(6) Theologians and church historians recognize that the Book of Acts does give the baptismal formula of the Early Church. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says with respect to baptism in the New Testament, “The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase: there is no evidence for theuse of the trine name.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states, “The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3, suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the three-fold name, but ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’”

Some argue that “in the name of Jesus” is not a formula since the various baptismal accounts use different descriptive phrases, such as “in the name of Jesus Christ,” “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and “in the name of the Lord.” However, all these phrases are equivalent, for they all describe the same name, which is Jesus. Lord and Christ are simply titles that distinguish the Lord Jesus Christ from any others who might have the name Jesus, but the unique name of the Son of God is Jesus. Even Matthew 28:19 describes the baptismal formula as being in the Name of Jesus.

I had (maybe still have if I haven't thrown them away) both of Bernard's books, The Oneness of God and The New Birth.

The truth is, there's not a single solitary NT reference of what precisely was said by the baptizor when they baptized another person. Additionally, there's not a single solitary NT reference that one's salvation hinges on what another person says over you while immersing you. Your salvation isn't dependent upon the correct performance of another man on your behalf. It's not scriptural.

[seekerman]

Same question to you, larry. Are the words a man speaks over another one during baptism, and who has called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ themselves, a determinate of the salvation of the individual being baptized?

A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.....but I doubt very seriously I get it.

[FlamingZword]

Jesus words concerning baptism in Matt 28:19 were....oh wait....you rewrote that. Never mind. :)

It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources. :smack

[navygoat1998]

It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources. :smack

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BIF8FvuCAAAIebQ.jpg:large

[seekerman]

It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources. :smack

It's not a restoration. You have no early texts showing such a usage.

Which Eusebius quotes Matt 28:19 as you've changed it?

[larrylyates]

It's not a restoration. You have no early texts showing such a usage.

Which Eusebius quotes Matt 28:19 as you've changed it?

This is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!
For the sake of clarifying the above point, one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.
The next list given by the Aland's is of the Uncials which begins in the fourth century with a 01 codex Sinaiticus.
Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing only those manuscripts "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is not among the verses found here!
Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.
Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc. Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command. In his writings after the council of Nicea, the traditional form including the Trinity baptism formula is found 5 times, although most of these are not above question.
I might add, that whether or not Eusebius's rendering indicates that the ending of Matthew was changed at some point or not, it certainly seems, at the least, to give us his interpretation of the passage! In The Proof of the Gospel and The Theophania Eusebius goes on to quote Philippians 2:9-11! Clearly indicating that he felt that the Name of Jesus was "the Name" referenced by this text!

You have no early texts showing such a usage.

That is a very dogmatic assertion that is easily proven false by a study of textual criticism and the writings of the Post-Apostolic Fathers. The data on this are extensive.

[seekerman]

This is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!
For the sake of clarifying the above point, one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995, pages 96-103. This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula.
The next list given by the Aland's is of the Uncials which begins in the fourth century with a 01 codex Sinaiticus.
Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13. Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing only those manuscripts "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is not among the verses found here!
Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. In spite of the numerous direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other "types" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider.
Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc. Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command. In his writings after the council of Nicea, the traditional form including the Trinity baptism formula is found 5 times, although most of these are not above question.
I might add, that whether or not Eusebius's rendering indicates that the ending of Matthew was changed at some point or not, it certainly seems, at the least, to give us his interpretation of the passage! In The Proof of the Gospel and The Theophania Eusebius goes on to quote Philippians 2:9-11! Clearly indicating that he felt that the Name of Jesus was "the Name" referenced by this text!

You have no early texts showing such a usage.

That is a very dogmatic assertion that is easily proven false by a study of textual criticism and the writings of the Post-Apostolic Fathers. The data on this are extensive.

Usually, when quoting from another source, you put quotes around it and reference the sourse else one might conclude that the person posting it has researched the issue themselves. Like this.....

http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

Not to do this would suggest the appearance of plagiarism, wouldn't it?

[larrylyates]

The simple fact of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it's never been defeated, invisible, cowering or absent for 2000 years. The simple fact is that the Church is built upon Jesus Christ and didn't suddenly appear in 1913 after almost 2000 years of being gone, invisible, dead and buried as one would have to believe if one views oneness pentecostalism (circa 1913) as the sole representative of the Church of Jesus Christ today.

The simple truth, like it or not, accept it or not, is that the Church of Jesus Christ is, and has been for 2000 years, much much larger than the latter day (circa 1913) oneness pentecostal sect.

The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ never made it out of the First Century intact. Much of the content of the Epistles were written in response to the false teaching that had already crept into the Church.

The Book of I John was written to combat the proto-gnosticism that was prevalent in the Church. The subsequent centuries were very much dominated by heresy and the visible, vibrant, powerful Church you continually speak of is absent from the pages of history.

There has of course always existed those true believers that never wavered in faith and practice. But the fact is the true people of God are Pentecostal in experience and Apostolic in doctrine. This is what Jesus taught and led His disciples to be. The true worshippers worship him in spirit and in truth. The Foundation of Truth (Eph2:20) is the Oneness of God and the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ. (Isaiah 43:10, John 8:24). There has always existed a remnant of the true people of God. But "remnant" hardly meets your description of your historical Church. Where is the documentation, the proof of this mysterious "powerful" Church? It simply isn't there.

Oh, make no mistake, there have been Oneness believers throughout Church History. But they were generally treated as heretics by the visible institutional Church and thousands were killed for their denial of the trinity. The "anathema clause" of the Athanasian Creed was enforced often and with vigor.

"The Reformation produced many who opposed the doctrine of the trinity in favor of Oneness beliefs. One prominent antitrinitarian at the time of the Reformation was Michael Servetus (1511-53), an eminent physician from Spain. He had only a few followers, although some historians consider him to be a motivating force for the development of Unitarianism.

However, he definitely was not Unitarian, for he acknowledged Jesus as God. The following description of him clearly indicates that he was a Oneness believer: “The denial by Servetus of the tripersonality of the Godhead and the eternality of the Son, along with his anabaptism, made his system abhorrent to Catholics and Protestants alike, in spite of his intense Biblicism, his passionate devotion to the person of Christ, and his Christocentric scheme of the universe.”

Servetus wrote, “There is no other person of God but Christ. . . . The entire Godhead of the Father is in him.”Sound familiar? Servetus went so far as to call the doctrine of the trinity a three-headed monster. He believed it necessarily led to polytheism and was a delusion from the devil. He also believed that because the church accepted trinitarianism, God allowed it to come under the rule of the papacy and so to lose Christ. He could not understand why the Protestants would come out of Catholicism but still insist upon retaining the nonbiblical and man-made doctrine of the trinity.

Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 for his beliefs, with the approval of John Calvin (although Calvin would have rather had him beheaded)." (David Bernard, The Oneness of God, Ch 10).

The whole of Church History since the time of the Reformation has been the gradual rediscovery and restoration of lost truth. 1913 was simply one more link in the chain of the promised restoration of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

[larrylyates]

Usually, when quoting from another source, you put quotes around it and reference the sourse else one might conclude that the person posting it has researched the issue themselves. Like this.....

http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

Not to do this would suggest the appearance of plagiarism, wouldn't it?

Correction accepted. As evidenced by my previous postings, I am generally very careful to document my sources so that the reader can verify the facts. In my haste I was negligent to do so this time. I apologize for the lapse and thank you for calling it to my attention and providing the link for the readers.

This in no way detracts from the evidence presented to support the claim made by Originally Posted by FlamingZword
"It is a text restoration based on Luke 24:47, Mark 16:16-17, backup by the writings of Eusebius and all the New Testament witness, and many scholarly sources."

You asked, "Which Eusebius."

[seekerman]

The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ never made it out of the First Century intact. Much of the content of the Epistles were written in response to the false teaching that had already crept into the Church.

The Book of I John was written to combat the proto-gnosticism that was prevalent in the Church. The subsequent centuries were very much dominated by heresy and the visible, vibrant, powerful Church you continually speak of is absent from the pages of history.

There has of course always existed those true believers that never wavered in faith and practice. But the fact is the true people of God are Pentecostal in experience and Apostolic in doctrine. This is what Jesus taught and led His disciples to be. The true worshippers worship him in spirit and in truth. The Foundation of Truth (Eph2:20) is the Oneness of God and the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ. (Isaiah 43:10, John 8:24). There has always existed a remnant of the true people of God. But "remnant" hardly meets your description of your historical Church. Where is the documentation, the proof of this mysterious "powerful" Church? It simply isn't there.

Oh, make no mistake, there have been Oneness believers throughout Church History. But they were generally treated as heretics by the visible institutional Church and thousands were killed for their denial of the trinity. The "anathema clause" of the Athanasian Creed was enforced often and with vigor.

"The Reformation produced many who opposed the doctrine of the trinity in favor of Oneness beliefs. One prominent antitrinitarian at the time of the Reformation was Michael Servetus (1511-53), an eminent physician from Spain. He had only a few followers, although some historians consider him to be a motivating force for the development of Unitarianism.

However, he definitely was not Unitarian, for he acknowledged Jesus as God. The following description of him clearly indicates that he was a Oneness believer: “The denial by Servetus of the tripersonality of the Godhead and the eternality of the Son, along with his anabaptism, made his system abhorrent to Catholics and Protestants alike, in spite of his intense Biblicism, his passionate devotion to the person of Christ, and his Christocentric scheme of the universe.”

Servetus wrote, “There is no other person of God but Christ. . . . The entire Godhead of the Father is in him.”Sound familiar? Servetus went so far as to call the doctrine of the trinity a three-headed monster. He believed it necessarily led to polytheism and was a delusion from the devil. He also believed that because the church accepted trinitarianism, God allowed it to come under the rule of the papacy and so to lose Christ. He could not understand why the Protestants would come out of Catholicism but still insist upon retaining the nonbiblical and man-made doctrine of the trinity.

Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 for his beliefs, with the approval of John Calvin (although Calvin would have rather had him beheaded)." (David Bernard, The Oneness of God, Ch 10).

The whole of Church History since the time of the Reformation has been the gradual rediscovery and restoration of lost truth. 1913 was simply one more link in the chain of the promised restoration of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

All that and you can't find the visible, viable and powerful Church of Jesus Christ in the decades immediately preceeding 1913. Strange. Very strange. Maybe just start with Church history in the 1800s? That's a very recent century, full of history.

Oh...and are you SURE you wish to claim Servetus as a oneness pentecostal?

[Nitehawk013]

Apparently this has not been seen or there is no evidence for a first century baptism in the titles.

Sorry, I hadn't been back to look atthe thiread for a while.

The book this info is in is called Early CHristain Writings. It is available on Amazon. I have not read it, but the information is in the book according to my friend. References to baptism in the titles clearly being done in the first century so during the time of the Apostolic Fathers.

Again, I am a believer in Jesus name baptism being the only correct means of baptism, but we can't ignore parts of history we don't like just because they cause a little hiccup in our doctrinal stance.

[Esaias]

Oh...and are you SURE you wish to claim Servetus as a oneness pentecostal?

Servetus taught Oneness better than many modern oneness theologians. Have you read his writings? Or just what the Arians and socinians claim?

Here, check this out - http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=14098&highlight=servetus

[Esaias]

Johannine comma -

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=6054&page=5

I will quote myself -

Oldest is not always better
Another charge often levied against this passage of scripture is that the manuscripts which do contain it are old, late, not early. That the earliest manuscripts do not, and therefore the passage should be jettisoned.

This of course presupposes that an early manuscript is superior to a later manuscript, by reason of the date. Is this argument meritorious?

Consider the following facts:

Whereas all but about 20 of the available Greek manuscripts contain the Comma (which in itself would destroy any 'only a few have them' arguments anyway), and the vast majority of these manuscripts are considered 'late' (post 9th century AD), the vast majority of the 20 odd manuscripts which omit the Comma are also late (post 9th century, some 95 percent of them, in fact). And this is according to the 'standard' set by the UBS themselves! (The UBS is the promoter of the Critical Text underlying the newer versions.)

The oldest Greek manuscript which contains the Comma (Dubbed Wizanburgensis) is older than all but 5 of the manuscripts which omit the Comma, and is contemporary with a 6th.

The bulk of the manuscripts for both sides of the issue are 'late', and both sides have 'early' manuscripts which attest to their respective readings.

But is older always better in regard to Biblical manuscripts? Not necessarily.

The Critical text relies primarily on two old texts (not necessarily manuscripts, by the way), the Vaticanus, and the Sinaiticus. These texts however routinely contradict each other in thousands of places, and the NIV or NASB or other critical text-based versions do not always make the decision of which reading to go with based upon age alone. I wonder why? In any event, these texts date from around the 4th century.

The problem is however that prior to that period, the New Testament text would have been extremely difficult to alter (such as by inserting the Johannine Comma). Many scholars are convinced that all variant readings were established by around the year 200 (Scrivener, Colwell, for example).

Consider the case of Origen for example. Origen in his day was one of the most influential teachers in Christendom. Yet his 'critical examinations' of Matthew 19:19 found their way into only one obscure manuscript of a local church. Why? Because by his time, the New Testament text had been dispersed too far and too widely to allow for such fiddling with the Scripture to be accepted very widely without leaving a clear witness to objections to the changes.

Furthermore, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus texts (usually referred to in the margins of newer Bible versions as 'the oldest and best manuscripts') are vellum texts. Vellum was used by Christians (especially catholics) as 'official copies' of the Scripture for liturgical usage. Unfortunately, vellum is not very durable, and wears out quickly from use.

Quick question then: If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were designed for common liturgical use, then why do they still exist?

Obviously, the reason we even have them in existence is precisely because they were not used. I wonder why they weren't used?

It could be that, since they differ so much from the majority of the texts and manuscripts, and from each other as well (just as much, in fact), therefore nobody used them because they were obviously corrupt versions of the known text of Scripture.

Papyrus (the other primary material upon which the Scriptures were recorded) is even less durable than vellum. Usage means wear and tear, and thus replacement. Therefore, ancient manuscripts or texts on vellum or papyrus, which are in good condition after 1500 or so years, are themselves the vest evidence they were not used... and why were they not used? Because they were obviously flawed, and known to be flawed.

When you have readings that come from a MAJORITY of extant manuscripts, and those manuscripts are 'late', that in itself is proof of their usage and copying. (The originals wear out and are replaced due to use.) And when you have the opposite conditions (very old manuscripts with minority readings) you may draw the opposite conclusion - they were NOT used and copied.

Which basically implies that either the oldest pristine manuscripts and texts giving strange and minority readings are the Word of God, hidden from everyone until say the late 19th century, or else they are simply corrupted versions of the New Testament text which were not used and copied precisely because they were known to be full of errors.

Furthermore, Dean Burgon's study of the patristic writers' quotations of the New Testament showed that the patristic writers quoted the Majority (often called the 'Byzantine') family of texts and manuscripts compared to the aberrant or 'Alexandrian' (ie similar to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts) by a ratio of 3 to 2. That is, they largely preferred to quote the 'later' majority manuscripts (even though these writers lived from the 2nd to the 9th centiuries!) rather than any manuscript or text reflecting the 'Alexandrian' or Vaticanus/Sinaiticus type of manuscript or text.

Zuntz (a textual critic and scholar) in his The Text of the Epistles (p 55) identified the fact that many manuscripts which are classed as 'Alexandrian' contain 'Byzantine' (majority) readings, and concludes that the Byzantine readings are ancient ( a similar situation prevails in Homeric textual criticism, by the way...)

In any event, simply pointing to a manuscript or textual reading as superior 'because it is older' is without merit. While age certianly are to be taken into account, age is by no means the sole, or even the most important, consideration in textual criticism.

[Esaias]

Again, quoting myself -

One thing that is strange, is that if the Johannine Comma was simply invented in the 'late period' of manuscript development (as the NIV footnote tries to argue), then why was it routinely quoted for centuries before that?

Tertullian in his famous Against Praxeas alludes to the Johannine Comma, and Cyprian explicitly quotes it in his 'Of the Ecclesiastical Unity' chapter 6. Both of these men lived in the 3rd century, prior to the time of the 'heretic' Priscillian who is often accused of being the inventor of the Comma. Likewise Athanasius quoted the Comma (again prior to Priscillian).

There are other witnesses to the antiquity of the Comma, besides mere quotations from patristic writers.

There is the Old Latin manuscript tradition. Dating from about the middle 2nd century, the Old Latin manuscripts contained the Comma. These Old Latin manuscripts were translated from the Greek, thus giving clear evidence that the Greek manuscripts at that time did in fact have the Comma.

Later, Jerome (when commissioned to develop the Latin Vulgate) complained that there were attempts being made in his day to alter and change the Greek Bibles, and even mentioned the Johannine Comma as being one of the corrupters targets. Like I said, by the 3rd century, attempts to alter the text of Scripture were noticed and challenged. (Some silly people try to argue that the Comma was unknown to Jerome, and not included in the Vulgate. However, the Council of Carthage, relying upon Jerome's Vulgate, explicitly cites the Johannine Comma in one of its canons.)

In fact, the Waldensian Bibles used by the Waldensians, who were completely outside of the Catholic Vulgate text tradition (they having been enemies of the Roman Catholic church since 'time immemorial' according to both themselves and the Inquisitors who persecuted them) had the Comma in their Bibles, being as they were translated from the Old Latin manuscripts and texts.

The Comma was known in the Syriac manuscript tradition as well, having been referred to by Jason of Edessa sometime around 700 AD. Thus, the Comma was present in yet another text or manuscript tradition.

The point being, there is a plethora of evidence that the Johannine Comma was known and in existence from the earliest times, which exposes the claims of its detractors as either uninformed or disengenuous.

[Esaias]

Once again -

Once upon a time, Erasmus was compiling the manuscripts of the New Testament into a text. He left out the Johannine Comma because no Greek text or manuscript could be found with it. He was challenged on this, and said, 'Show me just one Greek manuscript with it, and I will include it.' And so, made to order, a Greek manuscript was 'discovered' which conveniently contained the passage in question, and so he included in his revised text. And the rest is history.

Or is it?

First of all, there is no evidence of any such 'promise' on Erasmus' part. The top Erastian scholar, H. J. de Jonge, Dean of Theology at Leiden university, has pointed out that there is simply no evidence whatsoever of any such 'promise'.

In fact, one of the guys who popularised the 'Erastian Promise', Brian Metzger (one of the more famous proponents of the Critical Text) actually issued a retraction of his previous use of the Erastian Promise myth! (see his The Text of the New Testament p 291)

And so much for Erasmus.

[Esaias]

and finally -

And now we come to the Johannine Comma itself.

If the critics are right, and we remove the Comma, the resulting revised Greek text becomes a garbled bit of Greek non-grammar!

To put it simply, if we remove the offending parts, we have 'spirit, water, and blood' in verse 8. These are in Greek neuter nouns. They are followed by a Greek participle hoi marturountes, which is masculine. This is extremely bad grammar. It is in fact a Greek grammatical impossibility, to have three masculine witnesses agreeing as one neuter witness.

Replace the Johannine Comma where it ought to be, and the grammatical difficulty is completely resolved.

If removing a passage of Scripture renders the resulting text a garbled mass of grammatical confusion, it shoudl be obvious a mistake has been made, and the words should be put back in.

Also, it is contended that the verse was created by trinitarians to support their doctrine. Yet it does not in fact do so.

The eastern Orthodox churches routinely FAILED to use this passage, possibly even expunging it from many of the manuscripts they had, precisely because they feared it lent credence to the hated doctrine of Sabellius.

The trinitarian formula is 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' not 'Father, WORD, and Holy Spirit'.

Although some trinitarians did attempt to use it (as Tertullian for example) they had to cautiously explicate it in a trinitarian fashion specifically to avoid charges of Sabellianism!

The supposed creation of this text to buttress a trinitarian doctrine falls apart when considered against whom it would be used. Sabellians? Monarchians? Oneness people?

What about the Arians? Interestingly, the Arian controversy was strongest in the East, and there the Trinitarians did not really use this verse to argue against the Arians.

[Esaias]

Oops, one more from the same thread -

So then, we see the following:

1. The contested verse has plenty of ancient witness to its authenticity and antiquity.

2. The arguments put forward against it are fraught with inconsistencies and downright falsehoods.

3. The grammar falls apart without it and makes no sense.

4. The reason for its alleged interpolation does not match the historical facts.

5. Nobody has actually proven who dunnit, where, or when, or even why.

In short, there is really no reason whatsoever to accept the accusation that the contested words are not God's words, except a bigoted prejudice against what some perceive as a 'trinitarian proof text' (although they perceive falsely) and a bigoted and uninformed prejudice against any text or manuscript which does not conform to the 'critical text' (as corrupted and inconsistent as it is).

In point of fact, I would submit that all other things being equal, if the verse was NOT in the KING JAMES BIBLE, but was in the NIV, NASB, and all the others, the people arguing against it would be SILENT and committed to its veracity and authenticity.

I believe that people oppose this verse because they are opposed to the King James Bible itself. There is something about that Bible they do not like. Perhaps they themselves do not even know what it is.

Do not accuse me of being a 'King James Only' type. I am not. But there is something about the King James Bible that modernists, liberals, humanists, and other assorted spiritually troubled persons simply cannot stand.

There is a power in God's Word. It draws the ire of all modern society's self appointed 'experts'.

And so I conclude with why I believe the Johannine Comma is inspired, and not to be removed from the Bible.

'There are three that bear record in heaven - the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost... and these three are ONE.'

[seekerman]

Servetus taught Oneness better than many modern oneness theologians. Have you read his writings? Or just what the Arians and socinians claim?

Here, check this out - http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=14098&highlight=servetus

I've only read enough about Servetus to know that he wasn't preaching the three-stepper oneness pentecostal messaage of salvation. No doubt he was an anti-trinitarian and shared many of the views of God which oneness pentecostals began to promote at the sudden appearance of the sect in 1913, but Servetus was far far from being an 'apostolic' oneness pentecostal. I doubt oneness pentecostals would agree with His view that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God because he has the elements of the substance of the Father, to wit: fire, air and water" (The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine
Against Servetus, 14 August, 1553a)

[Esaias]

I've only read enough about Servetus ...

See? That's the problem. You 'only read enough ABOUT Servetus'.

Why not read what he actually wrote and then get back to us?

[Praxeas]

The origin of the interpolation is obscure. Traces of a mystical interpretation of the phrase about the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, applying it to the Trinity, are to be found in *Cyprian and *Augustine; but the earliest evidence for the insertion of a gloss in the text of the Epistle comes from a MS of *Priscillianist provenance discovered by G. Schepss at Würzburg in 1885. Later the insertion is found in quotations in African authors. It would thus seem to have originated in N. Africa or Spain and to have found its way into the Latin Bibles used in those districts (both *Old Latin and *Vulgate), possibly under the stress of *Arian persecution.

Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (885). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

[Praxeas]

The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matthaei, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts “there are three that bear record,” as the Scholiast notices, the word “three” is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this CYPRIAN, 196, also refers, “Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, ‘And these three are one’ (a unity).” There must be some mystical truth implied in using “three” (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, “Spirit, water, and blood,” are neuter. That THE TRINITY was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jn 5:9, “the witness of GOD,” referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted “in heaven,” was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to be borne: mystically setting forth the divine triune witnesses, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. LUECKE notices as internal evidence against the words, John never uses “the Father” and “the Word” as correlates, but, like other New Testament writers, associates “the Son” with “the Father,” and always refers “the Word” to “God” as its correlate, not “the Father.” Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century, is the first who quotes the disputed words as in the text; but no Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth is extant with them. The term “Trinity” occurs first in the third century in TERTULLIAN [Against Praxeas, 3].

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1 Jn 5:7). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[Praxeas]

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61:
codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.:
a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r.:
a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
636v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918:
a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318:
an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, “I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible,” in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463.


Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (647–649). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

[Praxeas]

20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.

This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.

He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it.

But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.


Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Jn 5:7–9). Biblical Studies Press.

[Esaias]

Does anybody even read what I post?

lol

[Praxeas]

20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.

This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.

He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it.

But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.


Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Jn 5:7–9). Biblical Studies Press.

Does anybody even read what I post?

lol
Yes and you said

"Whereas all but about 20 of the available Greek manuscripts contain the Comma (which in itself would destroy any 'only a few have them' arguments anyway), and the vast majority of these manuscripts are considered 'late' (post 9th century AD), the vast majority of the 20 odd manuscripts which omit the Comma are also late (post 9th century, some 95 percent of them, in fact). And this is according to the 'standard' set by the UBS themselves! (The UBS is the promoter of the Critical Text underlying the newer versions.)"

My quote says there were 9....

[larrylyates]

Does anybody even read what I post?

lol

I do! I do! I do!

Even save some for future reference.:thumbsup

Sorry I have bee away so much. Working on a curriculum and I have a deadline.

Your work on this thread has been particularly informative. Thanks for all your hard work.

You too Prax.

[Esaias]

I do! I do! I do!

Even save some for future reference.:thumbsup

Sorry I have bee away so much. Working on a curriculum and I have a deadline.

Your work on this thread has been particularly informative. Thanks for all your hard work.

You too Prax.

Hey, not a problem, brother!

If I may ask, what curriculum are you working on? Are you devising the curriculum? My interest is due to the fact that we homeschool our children.

I am currently trying to finish a rhetoric curriculum that I can package together as a complete K-12 scope and sequence for my grandkids when they come along. (My kids just LOVE being the guinea pigs, lol. Well, maybe they don't... heheheh...)

[Praxeas]

Did anyone read what I posted? :smack

[Esaias]

Did anyone read what I posted? :smack

Still reading it.

:icecream

[larrylyates]

Did anyone read what I posted? :smack

I was too busy reading Esaias!:heeheehee

[renee819]

The bottom line is, did the apostles obey Jesus commands? Absolutely!

And Jesus did give them commands of how to set up the New Testament Church.
And Peter summerized the One Plan of salvation in Acts 2:38 And they obeyed the gospel all through the book of Acts, the only book in the Bible that tells us how to be saved.

The Four Gospels, is not the gospel. It is te life of Jesus
Acts tells us how to be saved.
The Letters tells us how to let the 'fruit of the Spirit" come forth.

There is only One Gospel,as Paul tells us,...

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

[Sabby]

The simple fact of the Church of Jesus Christ is that it's never been defeated, invisible, cowering or absent for 2000 years. The simple fact is that the Church is built upon Jesus Christ and didn't suddenly appear in 1913 after almost 2000 years of being gone, invisible, dead and buried as one would have to believe if one views oneness pentecostalism (circa 1913) as the sole representative of the Church of Jesus Christ today.

The simple truth, like it or not, accept it or not, is that the Church of Jesus Christ is, and has been for 2000 years, much much larger than the latter day (circa 1913) oneness pentecostal sect.

Seekerman,
Of course you realize that not all oneness pentecostals are three step. Although swallowed up long ago by domineering 3 steppers, the United Pentecostal Church merger was between a one step (nearly bapti-costal) view of salvation, and the three steppers. Both believed in Jesus' name baptism.

[Sabby]

Seekerman,
I might add that the archaic use of the word "Persons" in the traditional Christian definition of the godhead has done more to create confusion within the 20th and 21st century church than it has unity.
"latter day oneness sect" is a backhanded way of minimizing those with whom you disagree. Walter Martin's two-sentence reference to oneness folks holds as much weight with you as "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God"...

[Sabby]

20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.

This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself.

He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it.

But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.


Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Jn 5:7–9). Biblical Studies Press.

Nice one, Prax.

[Amanah]

Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord . . .
If they understood that they were being buried with Christ in baptism, that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, and if they were calling on the name of the Lord in baptism, who is to say that they are not accepted in the Beloved . . . If they believed that they were crucified with Christ, and raised up again to walk in newness of life. If they identified with His death, burial, and resurrection, maybe it doesn't matter if someone (in ignorance) spoke the titles and not the name above all names over them, even though the bible clearly says that whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of Christ.

[FlamingZword]

My very good Friend has a book with quotes from a 1st century source. In it, they speak of the body baptizing in the titles according to Matthew 28.

The reality, is that prior to our having a canonized scripture, you would have had groups out there who perhaps ONLY had Matthew as fas as the gospels go. Hence they would have baptized as Matthew 28 instructs them. Later, once the canon was compiled it became IMO clear that Jesus Name baptism was the only scripturally endorsed means of proper baptism.

Yes there were groups of Christians that did not have the gospel of Matthew, and there were different versions of Matthew floating around.

However we must remember that the church begun at Pentecost in the Book of Acts led by all the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Truth.

There are also plenty of forgeries claiming baptism in the trinity in the first centuries, but most of them have already proven to be falsifications by the Trinitarians.

[larrylyates]

Yes there were groups of Christians that did not have the gospel of Matthew, and there were different versions of Matthew floating around.

However we must remember that the church begun at Pentecost in the Book of Acts led by all the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Truth.

There are also plenty of forgeries claiming baptism in the trinity in the first centuries, but most of them have already proven to be falsifications by the Trinitarians.

The majority of references on this topic that I use in my Doctrine of the Trinity course come from trinitatrian sources, not Oneness authors. They unequivocally support baptism in Jesus Name in early church history.

[BroBillyMartin]

The bottom line is, did the apostles obey Jesus commands? Absolutely!

And Jesus did give them commands of how to set up the New Testament Church.
And Peter summerized the One Plan of salvation in Acts 2:38 And they obeyed the gospel all through the book of Acts, the only book in the Bible that tells us how to be saved.

The Four Gospels, is not the gospel. It is te life of Jesus
Acts tells us how to be saved.
The Letters tells us how to let the 'fruit of the Spirit" come forth.

There is only One Gospel,as Paul tells us,...

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed



Now this is a post worthy of an Amen!

[UnTraditional]

May I ask this question, and please note that I am not seeking to be contentious or abrasive. You all know I once held that one must be baptized in Jesus name to be saved, then didn't, then did, then didn't, etc. But, my question is, if a person is going down in the waters of baptism with the preacher saying the triune formula, would they not be doing so in the authority of Christ? I do believe Jesus name baptism is an acceptable formula for baptism, but the point I want to make is this, that if it were that vitally important that baptism be done correctly, why then is the Holy Spirit being so heavily and wonderfully being poured out upon those who have not been baptized in Jesus name?

Like I said, not to be contentious, but just a point to ponder.

[Falla39]

May I ask this question, and please note that I am not seeking to be contentious or abrasive. You all know I once held that one must be baptized in Jesus name to be saved, then didn't, then did, then didn't, etc. But, my question is, if a person is going down in the waters of baptism with the preacher saying the triune formula, would they not be doing so in the authority of Christ? I do believe Jesus name baptism is an acceptable formula for baptism, but the point I want to make is this, that if it were that vitally important that baptism be done correctly, why then is the Holy Spirit being so heavily and wonderfully being poured out upon those who have not been baptized in Jesus name?
Like I said, not to be contentious, but just a point to ponder.

Read Acts 10, and when you get down to verse 34 where Peter realizes that both Jew and Gentile are both accepted.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

While Peter was preaching in vs 44, the Holy Ghost fell on all those who heard the word. Then in vs. 47,48 (although they had just received the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues and magnifying God, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Falla39

[Pliny]

Sorry, I hadn't been back to look atthe thiread for a while.

The book this info is in is called Early CHristain Writings. It is available on Amazon. I have not read it, but the information is in the book according to my friend. References to baptism in the titles clearly being done in the first century so during the time of the Apostolic Fathers.

Again, I am a believer in Jesus name baptism being the only correct means of baptism, but we can't ignore parts of history we don't like just because they cause a little hiccup in our doctrinal stance.

I have not checked here lately either.
However, it appears that the "evidence" then is purely speculative.
Thank you.

[larrylyates]

I have not checked here lately either.
However, it appears that the "evidence" then is purely speculative.
Thank you.

Anyone who would like to explore the writings of the "Early Church Fathers," can find the complete writings from a variety of sources by simply typing "Early Church Fathers download pdf" into your search bar. Most of the sites offer the complete 38 volume set in a compressed or "zipped" file. Others can be viewed directly from the site itself. Most are searchable. Here is one link:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/

[Rudy]

May I ask this question, and please note that I am not seeking to be contentious or abrasive. You all know I once held that one must be baptized in Jesus name to be saved, then didn't, then did, then didn't, etc. But, my question is, if a person is going down in the waters of baptism with the preacher saying the triune formula, would they not be doing so in the authority of Christ? I do believe Jesus name baptism is an acceptable formula for baptism, but the point I want to make is this, that if it were that vitally important that baptism be done correctly, why then is the Holy Spirit being so heavily and wonderfully being poured out upon those who have not been baptized in Jesus name?

Like I said, not to be contentious, but just a point to ponder.

Matt. 28:19 was a direct order.

[FlamingZword]

Matt. 28:19 was a direct order.

That nobody obeyed

[FlamingZword]

Anyone who would like to explore the writings of the "Early Church Fathers," can find the complete writings from a variety of sources by simply typing "Early Church Fathers download pdf" into your search bar. Most of the sites offer the complete 38 volume set in a compressed or "zipped" file. Others can be viewed directly from the site itself. Most are searchable. Here is one link:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/

Too many of those writings of those "Early Church Fathers" were "Corrected".
The Catholic church has admitted to it.

[seekerman]

Too many of those writings of those "Early Church Fathers" were "Corrected".
The Catholic church has admitted to it.

Give examples. Not some book and page number, but the actual change the roman catholic sect has admitted to making. Quote it. Post it.

[FlamingZword]

Give examples. Not some book and page number, but the actual change the roman catholic sect has admitted to making. Quote it. Post it.

How about the whole 'Book of the Popes'
a complete fictitious book, does it count or not?

[seekerman]

Too many of those writings of those "Early Church Fathers" were "Corrected".
The Catholic church has admitted to it.

Give examples. Not some book and page number, but the actual changes the roman catholic sect has admitted to making. Quote it. Post it.

????

[Rudy]

That nobody obeyed


It was obeyed.

[FlamingZword]

It was obeyed.

OK, Show me in the Book of Acts where it was obeyed?

[Esaias]

Didn't the early church also do nude baptisms?

I think the baptismal robes were added later...

[Rudy]

OK, Show me in the Book of Acts where it was obeyed?

Acts 2:38 is one. The name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, is Jesus. Would we assume they disobeyed Our Lord's command?

[FlamingZword]

Didn't the early church also do nude baptisms?

I think the baptismal robes were added later...

Please do not tell anyone, this little secret fact might raise some eyebrows.

[seekerman]

Too many of those writings of those "Early Church Fathers" were "Corrected".
The Catholic church has admitted to it.

Give examples. Not some book and page number, but the actual change the roman catholic sect has admitted to making. Quote it. Post it.

????

Bump.

[seekerman]

Acts 2:38 is one. The name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, is Jesus. Would we assume they disobeyed Our Lord's command?


Would you, or anyone else for that matter, please reference where Jesus ever addressed HisFather and God as 'Jesus'

Thanks.

[Rudy]

Would "I come in my Fathers Name"

Also what ever we do in word or deed do in the name of Jesus. this would be a command, yes?

[seekerman]

Would you, or anyone else for that matter, please reference where Jesus ever addressed HisFather and God as 'Jesus'

Thanks.

Would "I come in my Fathers Name"

Also what ever we do in word or deed do in the name of Jesus. this would be a command, yes?

No, that's not Jesus addressing His Father and God as 'Jesus'. Do you have scripture where Jesus was speaking to His Father and God and calling Him 'Jesus'?

[Rudy]

No, that's not Jesus addressing His Father and God as 'Jesus'. Do you have scripture where Jesus was speaking to His Father and God and calling Him 'Jesus'?


Can't say that I do. Not really sure what you are getting at. Are you saying the baptism in Jesus name is not an absolute?

[seekerman]

Can't say that I do. Not really sure what you are getting at. Are you saying the baptism in Jesus name is not an absolute?

What I'm getting at is that Jesus didn't address His God and Father as Jesus nor did Jesus address the Holy Ghost as Jesus. Not a single solitary time. There's no scripture for Jesus addressing anyone else as Jesus. There's only one Jesus and He had a God and Father who wasn't Jesus.

[Rudy]

What I'm getting at is that Jesus didn't address His God and Father as Jesus nor did Jesus address the Holy Ghost as Jesus. Not a single solitary time. There's no scripture for Jesus addressing anyone else as Jesus. There's only one Jesus and He had a God and Father who wasn't Jesus.

Interesting comment/post. Start a thread and see where it goes.

[seekerman]

Interesting comment/post. Start a thread and see where it goes.

I think it's related to this thread....which Jesus does one call upon in baptism, the one the Apostles called upon, the Son of God, or the Jesus which Jesus never addressed as Jesus (Jesus the Father or Jesus the Holy Ghost)?

[Esaias]

I think it's related to this thread....which Jesus does one call upon in baptism, the one the Apostles called upon, the Son of God, or the Jesus which Jesus never addressed as Jesus (Jesus the Father or Jesus the Holy Ghost)?

Maybe one should call upon the Jesus that Thomas called upon when he called him 'My Lord and my God'?

[seekerman]

Maybe one should call upon the Jesus that Thomas called upon when he called him 'My Lord and my God'?

Yes, the Jesus that has the same God and Father as Mary and His brethern. I agree!!

[Rudy]

I think it's related to this thread....which Jesus does one call upon in baptism, the one the Apostles called upon, the Son of God, or the Jesus which Jesus never addressed as Jesus (Jesus the Father or Jesus the Holy Ghost)?

Well, we have "Christ in you" --" in him dwells the fulness of the godhead bodily."

Also, "there is no other name under heaven where by we must be saved."

Also, New International Version (©2011) (http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/9.htm)
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

Here Saul is shown his Lord Is named Jesus.

[seekerman]

Well, we have "Christ in you" --" in him dwells the fulness of the godhead bodily."

Also, "there is no other name under heaven where by we must be saved."

True

Also, New International Version (©2011) (http://biblehub.com/niv/acts/9.htm)
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

Here Saul is shown his Lord Is named Jesus.

Would this be the Lord Jesus who was crucified, dead three days, raised from the dead and ascended to His, Mary's, and His brethren's Father and God, God the Father. Would this be Jesus the Lamb of God ascending to Jesus the Father which is His, and Mary's and His brethren's Father and God?

Personally, I think it would be the Lord Jesus who isn't His, Mary's and His brethren's Father and God.

[Rudy]

True



Would this be the Lord Jesus who was crucified, dead three days, raised from the dead and ascended to His, Mary's, and His brethren's Father and God, God the Father. Would this be Jesus the Lamb of God ascending to Jesus the Father which is His, and Mary's and His brethren's Father and God?

Personally, I think it would be the Lord Jesus who isn't His, Mary's and His brethren's Father and God.

Gets confusing when looking at it from a trinitarian view.

[seekerman]

Gets confusing when looking at it from a trinitarian view.

Actually, I was looking at it from the oneness view of Jesus the Son of God and Jesus God the Father.

I'm just saying to call upon Jesus the Son of God, the Lamb of God.