If all the people in the Bible were baptized in the name of Jesus, why does only mat 28.18 reads about the trinity which was a statement given Jesus himself.
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,226 times
-1
-
Hi Ash and welcome to the site. This is a great question however it was already answered elsewhere. Please see the link above. – Ruminator Apr 23 '19 at 19:35
1 Answers
-3
I address this question in another question.
The short answer is that it was not original because it contradicts the many passages in Acts where they baptized in the name of Christ. In fact Paul's whole theology is built upon the notion of being joined to Christ:
[Rom 6:3 ESV] (3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[Rom 6:8 ESV] (8) Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
[Col 2:20 ESV] (20) If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--
[Col 3:3 ESV] (3) For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
Baptism into Christ is the warp and woof of Pauline theology.
Baptism into "the Trinity" is of Roman origin, not apostolic.
-
Where is the textual evidence of leaving the Trinity out? The only variations in the textual apparatus on 28:19 is whether the participles should be imperatives. – Perry Webb Apr 22 '19 at 09:12
-
The earliest manuscripts extant for Matthew date circa 325ad which is when the Imperator of Rome had a vision about conquering under a "cross". He realized that his beloved sun, if you squinted, made a cross in the rays. There are several such changes in the KJV, not to mention English translations. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 09:28
-
1This assertion is simply untrue as Frank Luke ably documents at https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/was-the-text-of-matthew-2819-changed/12937#12937 – Apr 22 '19 at 11:40
-
@Ruminator what is the source of your assertions on the history in 325 AD? You have insisted others document with sources, what are yours? Any chance it is Ellen G. White? – Ken Banks Apr 22 '19 at 13:39
-
@Ruminator, "if you squinted" isn't even required. Look at this photograph of sun dogs. This image appears a lot in Catholic symbols as a circle with a central sun surrounded by four smaller suns. – Ray Butterworth Apr 22 '19 at 13:53
-
Okay, well 325AD is not part of my answer, or my reasoning. What you need to do to attack my post is to show that Acts and Romans are frauds. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 13:53
-
@RayButterworth Yes, but you and I are not unbaptized pagan sun worshiping pagan emperors, are we? – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 13:55
-
Arius (c. AD 250–336) would have argued against this change if it indeed happened. – Perry Webb Apr 22 '19 at 23:47
-
The emperor held the meeting behind closed doors. He did not even admit his soldiers. We don't know what went on behind closed doors. They burned the works of all their opponents. Eusebius was exiled simply for continuing to contact Arius who was eventually murdered. – Ruminator Apr 22 '19 at 23:56
-
Manuscript dating is tricky, and it is often dated by handwriting analysis. Would you and your wife be dated the same by analysts in the future using this method? It is also dated by whether it mentions the Great Revolt, the temple, etc. The historical record is tainted by Roman tampering. – Ruminator Apr 23 '19 at 00:06
-
@Ruminator It is not that the Acts or Romans are frauds, to use your language. You just have to show that in those cases the writer was not referring to the baptismal formula. Granted that is not an easy task, but not impossible. Your own inconsistency is also apparent. A few weeks back you insisted I write hundreds of words explaining my reasons and yet you were not satisfied. Yet here you make bold assertions without a single reference, including the fact that you know what went on in a secret meeting behind closed door. You even imply that the meeting had no records yet you know, How? – Ken Banks Apr 23 '19 at 13:40
-
@KenBanks Are you saying that you consider the dates supplied for given manuscripts to be reliable? Do you even have the autographs? – Ruminator Apr 23 '19 at 13:45
-
@Runinator There are no manuscripts in any apparatus that I have seen that has a shorter reading for Matthew 28:19 and neither are there any manuscripts which have longer readings for Acts 19:5 as your "history" tries to imply. History with no sources. Your dating of manuscripts issue is irrelevant since there are not any that support your notion of Matthew 28:19. If there is not a single manuscript with a shorter reading it is reasonable to conclude that the reading represents what was in the autograph. All work on the readings of Greek manuscripts takes this as the central first point. – Ken Banks Apr 23 '19 at 14:07
-
Reasonable. However, we are dealing with people who murdered Arius, destroyed all his writings and exiled Eusebius for his association with him, are we not? The Emperor was a pagan whose concept of Christianity was a vision from the sun about conquest through religion. It was under duress from him that the Creed that supplanted the apostolic faith was created. The verse has variants. It has been tampered with. – Ruminator Apr 23 '19 at 14:10
-
No variants that includes the baptismal formula. You are simply making false statements. Name a single Greek manuscript that has a shorter reading for Matthew 28:19. You can't because there aren't any. – Ken Banks Apr 23 '19 at 14:13
-
Show me the money. Show me the autograph. We do know that Eusebius' writings show the shorter reading. – Ruminator Apr 23 '19 at 14:15
-
Your are misrepresenting Eusebius. If you had actually read Eusebius you would know that he often loosely quoted passages to suit his purpose. He does loosely quote Matthew 28:19 with shorter readings and also at times with longer readings. He records the writings of the church fathers back to the first century with the longer reading. Your entre unsupported "history" assumes without stating that every single manuscript that was written before 325 was destroyed by an edict and no historian records this event. With thousands of Greek manuscripts that would have been impossible, even irrational. – Ken Banks Apr 23 '19 at 14:36
-
Can you show me these thousands of manuscripts of Matthew that contain the Trinitarian formulation that can be shown to have been written prior to 325AD? – Ruminator Apr 23 '19 at 15:25
-
