The Apostolic New Testament soon to be published!

[Sabby]

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.

I too wonder about the continued use of words like "spake" if they're doing a modern translation. I know "spake" sounds more religious and maybe rolls off the tongue a little better for the preacher, sounds like God speaking to some, but hey folks, it's 2012!!


Their Gospel of Matthew is closed with this comment....

"While the phrase (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) or similar wording does not exist in any other place of the New Testament or early apostolic
documents, for it is without a doubt a later creation."

That can quickly be shown to be error....

Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".

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."

Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well.

Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"

Nicely done

[Sabby]

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.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

The Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and now Oneness Apostolic each have their own version of the bible. Look at the company you keep.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Official RCC teaching on Baptism.
Read it for yourself.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Good one, Scott:
"There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. Certain texts in the New Testament have given rise to this difficulty. Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) "were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ", and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2).

Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus are invoked as authorities for this opinion, they declaring that the Apostles so acted by special dispensation. Other writers, as Peter Lombard and Hugh of St. Victor, hold also that such baptism would be valid, but say nothing of a dispensation for the Apostles. The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of Christ", either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another. In fact, the words of St. Paul (Acts 19) imply quite plainly that they did not. For, when some Christians at Ephesus declared that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle asks: "In whom then were you baptized?" This text certainly seems to declare that St. Paul took it for granted that the Ephesians must have heard the name of the Holy Ghost when the sacramental formula of baptism was pronounced over them."

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The original quote was not about Mat 28:19 it was about the origin of the Apostles Creed in relation to baptism.

In fact he asserts the Apostles Creed on baptism was fundamentally based on what Jesus said in Mat 28:19 and he then quotes it.

Read here
http://books.google.com/books?id=LJl...rse%22&f=false

OK I finally got a chance to read this part of Joseph Ratzinger from his actual book

This was my original quotation that I got wrong and will be deleted from the next edition of "The Holy Apostolic New Testament"

The following quote is incorrect.
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

In here he was really talking about the creed of the Apostles in connection with Baptism, not about baptism itself and perhaps someone got confused on that matter, when they quoted him. ( I would like to give that person the benefit of the doubt, instead of accusing that person of purposely misquoting the Cardinal)

One honest mistake does not negate the whole premise of all the other arguments.

In a way I am happy that this Apostolic version is so attacked for it only forces us to do more research and this will only make our case even stronger for the next edition.
We are still accumulating more material and biblical arguments for our position that Matthew 28:19 as it currently reads is spurious, we will add more arguments and even more material supporting our position in our next edition.

in his name