The Apostolic New Testament soon to be published!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Well...seekerman, what you posted did give the impression that the Son gave the Son all power in heaven and earth...


Would you care to correct that?

Nope, I did not say that the Son gave the Son all power in heaven in earth. Why keep suggesting that i did? Would you like to point out where I did and if I didn't, simply say that the accusation was in error?

Originally Posted by seekerman
I already see a mistake in it. " 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth"

That SHOULD read "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
I have given me all power in heaven and in earth" in order to harmonize with oneness theology.

Is the rewrite promoting error?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We have already encountered this argument before and we and other people consider those supossedly "Post- Apostolic Writtings" to be either spurious, lies or later alterations. It is well known that forgeries and alterations to ancient writtings were done quite frequently. so we are not impressed.

We are still on schedule for publication after a few more minor reviews.

If despite our best efforts to publish an error free version, we somehow do not quite succeed, we have always considered the posibility that we might publish a future Revised version, if we consider it necesary.

Just as an example, why do you consider the following spurious, lies or somehow later altered? Do you have any sort of proof for such a view?

Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Also, why did you keep the 'ye olde english' verbiage? What was the reasoning behind rejecting modern day language?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

On January or February of 2013, we will be publishing the Apostolic New Testament.

We begun the Old testament many years ago, but decided that doing the New Testament was more important, so after we publish the New Testament, we will return to complete the Old Testament. which I estimate will be finished by the year 2016 or 2017.

To get a sample copy of the Gospel of Matthew visit our web site
http://www.one-lord.org

It took us a few years to finish the New Testament
We have reviewed it many times and we believe it is about ready for publishing.
We are just doing some final minor revisions and corrections,
before we publish it.

I can't wait to read John 17 in this 'apsotolic' version.

[trialedbyfire]

Can anyone tell me what exactly is the point of coming out with all these new "translations"?

[houston]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

Lord now they'll have a reason to think we're all crazy!

Now?

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Just as an example, why do you consider the following spurious, lies or somehow later altered? Do you have any sort of proof for such a view?

Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Also, why did you keep the 'ye olde english' verbiage? What was the reasoning behind rejecting modern day language?

From what I've read of the early church fathers, I've gathered a lot of pretty good information on the evolving of church governance and how certain doctrines seemed to develop in the second, third, and fourth centuries. Many of the early Christians in the second century were being taught that the baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ was for the Jews alone, and that the Baptism in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost was for the Gentiles. This could have been where F.S.HG. Baptism may have originated and got it's legs as a doctrine.

I don't see the Biblical reasoning behind it, since there are gentiles recorded as going down in Jesus Name under Peter. Then there's that big argument over whether Peter and Paul agreed on everything doctrinally, but I don't see anywhere in scripture where Peter and Paul preached two different baptisms, and I think that'd probably be pretty important. I think there were some in Christianity that took Paul's message to far and those who took James' message to far. Those who tried to "Judaize" Christianity to the point where the feasts were kept, etc and there were those who tried to romanize Christianity to the extent that core doctrines were abandoned or changed. Baptism may have taken a hit because of that. I think some of the church fathers made an honest mistake in trying to separate the baptisms and the Catholic church ran on it because it went in line with the trinity doctrine Tertullian was preaching. Of course, I think these doctrines lived amongst each other for a while on the local church level. I believe there were trinitarians and Jesus only Christians all fellowshipping with one another until the church became further Romanized and Sabellian Christians began to be persecuted and killed off by their own brethren.

I will say many of the church fathers did seem to teach baptismal regeneration. They were very stringent about the "remission of sins" actually occurring at baptism. They just had a different baptismal formula. Personally I believe there was a great controversy in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries about the formula and even the mode but not the necessity.

All well just my ramble...

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by houston

Now?

BOOOOOOO!!!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

On January or February of 2013, we will be publishing the Apostolic New Testament.

We begun the Old testament many years ago, but decided that doing the New Testament was more important, so after we publish the New Testament, we will return to complete the Old Testament. which I estimate will be finished by the year 2016 or 2017.

To get a sample copy of the Gospel of Matthew visit our web site
http://www.one-lord.org

It took us a few years to finish the New Testament
We have reviewed it many times and we believe it is about ready for publishing.
We are just doing some final minor revisions and corrections,
before we publish it.

I saw the Mtt. 28:19 passage and it deletes the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Instead the rendering is to "baptizing them in my name". There is an explanatory note given as Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263 – 339) using this shortened passage.

While this is good it is IMO a bad idea. There are other witnesses that use the longer phrase so you need to be prepared for the fallout.

Justin Martyr said:
Justin Martyr Chapter LXI
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


There is also Ignatius
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
Chapter II
…There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.


There is also the Didache that mentions that phrase. In other words using one source while ignoring the other sources is bad scholarship and will be thoroughly criticized. I wonder what you will do with Mark 16 and the longer version of that writing. Will it be taken out? It seems to me you must if you are going to leave out the phrase in question on Mtt. 28:19. That will surely prove an editorial bias! Then there is 1 John 5:7. What will happen with that verse?

This just opens up to many criticisms and rather than helping the Apostolic movement IMO it will hinder it. We will be seen as the JW's rewriting scripture for the sake of doctrine - this is what Trinitarian's have done (1 John 5:7). We do not need to go there. By all means leave the note that is there and with intellectual honesty mention the other sources that do quote it as mentioned above. Truth need not fear the facts. Let the word of God be true and every man a liar.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Nope, I did not say that the Son gave the Son all power in heaven in earth. Why keep suggesting that i did? Would you like to point out where I did and if I didn't, simply say that the accusation was in error?

Not saying that you meant it. I said your post gives the impression that is what you meant.

Originally Posted by seekerman

That SHOULD read "28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
I have given me all power in heaven and in earth" in order to harmonize with oneness theology.

As a reader of this post, I thought that was a strange thing to post.

Just trying to help you out some. I agree with some of your postings overall and could not help but agree that particular post gives the impression that is what you meant.
Perhaps you were posting this TIC? Facetious maybe? Just trying to get a feel for what you are really trying to say?

.

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Pliny

I saw the Mtt. 28:19 passage and it deletes the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Instead the rendering is to "baptizing them in my name". There is an explanatory note given as Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263 – 339) using this shortened passage.

While this is good it is IMO a bad idea. There are other witnesses that use the longer phrase so you need to be prepared for the fallout.

Justin Martyr said:
Justin Martyr Chapter LXI
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.


There is also Ignatius
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
Chapter II
…There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.


There is also the Didache that mentions that phrase. In other words using one source while ignoring the other sources is bad scholarship and will be thoroughly criticized. I wonder what you will do with Mark 16 and the longer version of that writing. Will it be taken out? It seems to me you must if you are going to leave out the phrase in question on Mtt. 28:19. That will surely prove an editorial bias! Then there is 1 John 5:7. What will happen with that verse?

This just opens up to many criticisms and rather than helping the Apostolic movement IMO it will hinder it. We will be seen as the JW's rewriting scripture for the sake of doctrine - this is what Trinitarian's have done (1 John 5:7). We do not need to go there. By all means leave the note that is there and with intellectual honesty mention the other sources that do quote it as mentioned above. Truth need not fear the facts. Let the word of God be true and every man a liar.

There's no point in arguing over Matthew 19:28. It does not single-handedly reverse Acts 2:38, Acts 8: 12 & 16, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:1-6, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:1-4, 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. The Bible gives us the formula for scriptural interpretation LINE UPON LINE and PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT. "But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'" Dueteronomy 17:6.

If you're going to establish reasoning for the changing of the baptismal formula you better have more then one witness from scripture, and you cannot find another, not even from the other accounts of the great commission. Paul never says we're baptized into the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, he says we are Baptized into Christ. He never compares baptism to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost or a divided Godhead, but the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ Jesus.

Matthew 28:19 should not be problematic for people who understand early church history and the Bible as a whole. There are FAR more problematic verses for oneness folks, believe it or not. I see no reason, like you said, to change or remove it, even if there's evidence that would suggest that doing so would be appropriate. If Haywood, Urshan, and Lawson preached it effectively, so can we.