Will We See the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Heaven, or Just Jesus?

[Charlie24]

I am not saying it is a lie that verse is there. Just the prepositional phrases were added after the Apostolic age by a council headed by a Roman Catholic Emperor.

The problem with relying on history is that how do we know it's true.

For example, several say that Tertullian wrote twice the contents of Matt. 28:19. he died in 225 and the supposed change could not have taken place.

So much doubt and no actual proof.

 

[First and the Last]

The problem with relying on history is that how do we know it's true.

For example, several say that Tertullian wrote twice the contents of Matt. 28:19. he died in 225 and the supposed change could not have taken place.

So much doubt and no actual proof.

And when I state historical rather than Scriptural evidence I do my best not to go by hearsay but search for actual documentation that can be found.

 

[First and the Last]

Plus I found this as well.

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
________________________________________
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 3, Pg 82
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
________________________________________
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Pg 53
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 8
Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.”
________________________________________
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 22, Pg 477
The term “Trinity” was originated by Tertullian, a Roman Catholic Church Father.
________________________________________
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; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion….in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands.
________________________________________
INTERPRETERS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
(1962) I, 351
The evidence … suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, nut ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’.
________________________________________
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick)
(1965), I, 53
At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
________________________________________
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
(1898), I, 241
[One explanation is that] the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’. Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.
________________________________________
A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Williston Walker, (1947), Pg 58
The Trinitarian baptismal formula … was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.
________________________________________
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
(1957), I, 435
The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus …, which still occurs even in the second and third centuries.
________________________________________
CANNEY’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS
(1970), Pg 53
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.
________________________________________
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
(1899), I, 473
It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ or in that ‘of the Lord Jesus.’ This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single – not triple, as was the later creed.
________________________________________
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
11TH edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 365
The Trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Baptism] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the new Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.

 

[Charlie24]

And when I state historical rather than Scriptural evidence I do my best not to go by hearsay but search for actual documentation that can be found.

Who is verifying the documentation, how are they doing it? What sources are they taking as fact?

History is not reliable in determining anything about Scripture, especially when it goes back over 1500 years ago.

It's interesting to read, but I place no faith in it.

 

[Charlie24]

Plus I found this as well.

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
________________________________________
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 3, Pg 82
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
________________________________________
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Pg 53
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 8
Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.”
________________________________________
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 22, Pg 477
The term “Trinity” was originated by Tertullian, a Roman Catholic Church Father.
________________________________________
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; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion….in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands.
________________________________________
INTERPRETERS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
(1962) I, 351
The evidence … suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, nut ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’.
________________________________________
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick)
(1965), I, 53
At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
________________________________________
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
(1898), I, 241
[One explanation is that] the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’. Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.
________________________________________
A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Williston Walker, (1947), Pg 58
The Trinitarian baptismal formula … was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.
________________________________________
THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE
(1957), I, 435
The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus …, which still occurs even in the second and third centuries.
________________________________________
CANNEY’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS
(1970), Pg 53
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.
________________________________________
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
(1899), I, 473
It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times ‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ or in that ‘of the Lord Jesus.’ This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single – not triple, as was the later creed.
________________________________________
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
11TH edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 365
The Trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning… Baptism] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the new Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.

There is much room for reasonable doubt. What really did take place?

Did God allow an untruth to take place in His Word at the hands of whoever?

Is God so weak that He had no control and we are reading something that is not true in His Word?

 

[Charlie24]

There is much room for reasonable doubt. What really did take place?

Did God allow an untruth to take place in His Word at the hands of whoever?

Is God so weak that He had no control and we are reading something that is not true in His Word?

Whatever evidence anyone may show from history, I stand by faith in the Almighty God that I'm reading His truth as He wanted it to be every time I open my Bible. History has nothing to show me that God didn't have control over.

 

[Charlie24]

Whatever evidence anyone may show from history, I stand by faith in the Almighty God that I'm reading His truth as He wanted it to be every time I open my Bible. History has nothing to show me that God didn't have control over.

First and the Last, do you have doubt that God has kept His Word in tact for us, totally and completely?

 

[First and the Last]

There is much room for reasonable doubt. What really did take place?

Did God allow an untruth to take place in His Word at the hands of whoever?

Is God so weak that He had no control and we are reading something that is not true in His Word?

Please stop using the words untrue and lie because that is not what I am saying. Plain and simple historians after the Apostles were gone added the prepositional phrases to support the Trinity.​

Revelation 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"​

Adding to the Word of God, as warned in Revelation 22:18-19, carries profound implications. This passage is understood as a clear prohibition against any attempt to supplement or modify the content of Scripture beyond what has been originally given by God to the original writers. It underscores the belief that the Bible, in its entirety, is inspired by God and serves as the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Adding to the Word of God can take various forms. It includes inserting doctrines, teachings, or practices that are not supported by clear and consistent biblical evidence. This could involve introducing interpretations or traditions that deviate from the plain meaning and intent of Scripture, thereby distorting its message. emphasizing the need for sound biblical exegesis and interpretation, rooted in the context and intent of the original writers inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Adding to the Word of God can extend to the realm of personal revelation or prophecy that claims to supplement or supersede the authority of Scripture. While Scripture affirm the continuation of spiritual gifts, including prophecy, they maintain that any new revelation must align with and not contradict the established teachings of the Bible. The warning in Revelation 22 serves as a safeguard against false teachings and ideologies that may arise when individuals or groups seek to expand or alter the biblical text to suit their own agendas or beliefs.

Adding to the Word of God is viewed as a serious transgression that undermines the integrity and authority of Scripture. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining fidelity to the original revelation given by God, ensuring that His Word remains pure and unadulterated as the timeless and unchanging foundation for Christian faith and practice.

The Evidence of Eusebius (ALL HISTORICAL FACT)​

• Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D.
• Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament” (Dr. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, page 108).
• “Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time… worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius…relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts” (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924)
• “Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning.”… he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilius, a learned and devout man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning.” (J. L. Mosheim, editorial footnote).
• In his library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries” (The Hibbert Journal, October., 1902)
• Eusebius was an eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that was likely an early copy near to the original Matthew.
• Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
• The MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors (F.C. Conybeare, Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105)

Quotes from Eusebius​

Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio Evangelica), 300-336 AD​

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

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

Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152​

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” …

Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159​

I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175​

And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

 

[Charlie24]

Please stop using the words untrue and lie because that is not what I am saying. Plain and simple historians after the Apostles were gone added the prepositional phrases to support the Trinity.​

Revelation 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"​

Adding to the Word of God, as warned in Revelation 22:18-19, carries profound implications. This passage is understood as a clear prohibition against any attempt to supplement or modify the content of Scripture beyond what has been originally given by God to the original writers. It underscores the belief that the Bible, in its entirety, is inspired by God and serves as the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Adding to the Word of God can take various forms. It includes inserting doctrines, teachings, or practices that are not supported by clear and consistent biblical evidence. This could involve introducing interpretations or traditions that deviate from the plain meaning and intent of Scripture, thereby distorting its message. emphasizing the need for sound biblical exegesis and interpretation, rooted in the context and intent of the original writers inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Adding to the Word of God can extend to the realm of personal revelation or prophecy that claims to supplement or supersede the authority of Scripture. While Scripture affirm the continuation of spiritual gifts, including prophecy, they maintain that any new revelation must align with and not contradict the established teachings of the Bible. The warning in Revelation 22 serves as a safeguard against false teachings and ideologies that may arise when individuals or groups seek to expand or alter the biblical text to suit their own agendas or beliefs.

Adding to the Word of God is viewed as a serious transgression that undermines the integrity and authority of Scripture. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining fidelity to the original revelation given by God, ensuring that His Word remains pure and unadulterated as the timeless and unchanging foundation for Christian faith and practice.

The Evidence of Eusebius (ALL HISTORICAL FACT)​

• Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D.
• Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament” (Dr. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, page 108).
• “Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time… worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius…relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts” (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924)
• “Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning.”… he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilius, a learned and devout man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning.” (J. L. Mosheim, editorial footnote).
• In his library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries” (The Hibbert Journal, October., 1902)
• Eusebius was an eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that was likely an early copy near to the original Matthew.
• Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Jesus’ actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
• The MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors (F.C. Conybeare, Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105)

Quotes from Eusebius​

Proof of the Gospel (the Demonstratio Evangelica), 300-336 AD​

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

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

Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152​

With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” …

Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159​

I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them; “Make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175​

And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

Some early Christian writings appealed to Matthew 28:19. The Didache, written at the turn of the 1st century, borrows the baptismal Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19. The seventh chapter of the Didache reads "Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". In addition, Tertullian, writing around the turn of the 2nd century, also cites the bapstismal Trinitarian formula from this Matthean passage twice in his writings. In the 26th chapter of his Against Praxeas, arguing against a Unitarian understanding of God, Tertullian cites this formula, writing "He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God." In addition, in the 13th chapter of Tertullian's On Baptism, he cites the formula in order to establish the necessity of the practice of baptism, writing "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "'Go,' He says, 'teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'"



So who is right here? Is it your source or mine? If we can't trust the Lord to preserve His words for us down through the centuries, then all is lost, why have faith in Him at all.

 

[First and the Last]

Some early Christian writings appealed to Matthew 28:19. The Didache, written at the turn of the 1st century, borrows the baptismal Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19. The seventh chapter of the Didache reads "Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". In addition, Tertullian, writing around the turn of the 2nd century, also cites the bapstismal Trinitarian formula from this Matthean passage twice in his writings. In the 26th chapter of his Against Praxeas, arguing against a Unitarian understanding of God, Tertullian cites this formula, writing "He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God." In addition, in the 13th chapter of Tertullian's On Baptism, he cites the formula in order to establish the necessity of the practice of baptism, writing "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "'Go,' He says, 'teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'"



So who is right here? Is it your source or mine? If we can't trust the Lord to preserve His words for us down through the centuries, then all is lost, why have faith in Him at all.

Both apparently! I never meant for this to be an attack against the trinity any scripture that is in doubt and can be researched that its validity is questionable needs considerations especially based on written historical records. When I see things like this (and the quotes in the above post) as a human I am going to question it:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between “nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent.”

Put all preconceived ideas of the Trinity and Oneness doctrine and any denominational though aside. Based on facts would it make you question whether or not it was part of Matthew's original words. (85 to 95 A.D.)

 

[Charlie24]

Both apparently! I never meant for this to be an attack against the trinity any scripture that is in doubt and can be researched that its validity is questionable needs considerations especially based on written historical records. When I see things like this (and the quotes in the above post) as a human I am going to question it:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between “nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent.”

Put all preconceived ideas of the Trinity and Oneness doctrine and any denominational though aside. Based on facts would it make you question whether or not it was part of Matthew's original words. (85 to 95 A.D.)

No, I have never questioned it and never will. God will not allow His Word which He places above His name to be added to or taken from.

Christ gives the warning not to add or take away from Scripture, and that's what it is, a warning.

It doesn't mean that God will allow it to happen. He has struck down many in the Scripture for less than this offence.

 

[First and the Last]

The parallel accounts of the great commission in Mark 16 and Luke 24 both describe the name of Jesus. The early church, which included Matthew, carried out Christ’s instructions by baptizing in the name of Jesus. While church historians generally agree that the original baptismal formula was indeed “in the name of Jesus,” not all trinitarians agree that this biblical phrase denotes the oral invocation of the name Jesus.

This is the most natural, literal reading. In Acts 22:16 Ananias told Paul to invoke the name of the Lord at baptism. Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 indicate that the name of Jesus was invoked over Christians at a specific point in time. In the latter verse, The Amplified Bible even identifies this as water baptism.

When the disciples prayed, laid hands on the sick, and cast out devils “in the name of Jesus,” they always invoked the name orally (Acts 3:6; 16:18; 19:13).

The phrase does signify the power and authority of Jesus, but the power and authority represented by a name is always invoked by actually using the proper name.

If this phrase does not describe a baptismal formula, then neither does Matthew 28:19, since the grammatical construction is identical. However, this would leave the church without any means to distinguish Christian baptism from pagan baptisms, Jewish proselyte baptism, and John’s baptism. Although the precise wording of the baptismal accounts differs, all (including Matthew 28:19) describe the same name: Jesus.

Can't forget these two passages:

Romans 6:3​

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Galatians 3:27​

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Plus:

Using a name instead of titles in rituals, whether in witchcraft, other cults, or Christian rites, carries significant importance across various religious and spiritual traditions. In many occult and magical practices, invoking a specific name is believed to directly connect the practitioner to the entity or power they are calling upon, as names are thought to hold intrinsic power and particularity, making the invocation more effective and authoritative. Similarly, in Christianity, using the name of Jesus Christ is seen as invoking His direct presence and authority, rooted in biblical teachings that emphasize the power and significance of Jesus' name. Names provide precision and denote specific identity, which is crucial in rituals aiming to summon particular spirits or deities, whereas titles can be more generic and less effective. The New Testament emphasizes the significance of Jesus' name in various rites and practices, representing the fullness of His identity and authority. The early church practiced baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, setting a scriptural precedent for using names rather than titles in key rites. This practice underscores the personal and salvific work of Jesus Christ, emphasizing a direct relationship with Him. Thus, using names in rituals highlights the importance of personal connection and the power inherent in names across various spiritual traditions.

 

[First and the Last]

We do not have any surviving original manuscripts (often called autographs) from the original writers of the Scriptures, whether Old Testament or New Testament. I so wish we did, then finally we would know for sure. The manuscripts we have are copies, often made centuries after the originals were written.

 

[Charlie24]

The parallel accounts of the great commission in Mark 16 and Luke 24 both describe the name of Jesus. The early church, which included Matthew, carried out Christ’s instructions by baptizing in the name of Jesus. While church historians generally agree that the original baptismal formula was indeed “in the name of Jesus,” not all trinitarians agree that this biblical phrase denotes the oral invocation of the name Jesus.

This is the most natural, literal reading. In Acts 22:16 Ananias told Paul to invoke the name of the Lord at baptism. Acts 15:17 and James 2:7 indicate that the name of Jesus was invoked over Christians at a specific point in time. In the latter verse, The Amplified Bible even identifies this as water baptism.

When the disciples prayed, laid hands on the sick, and cast out devils “in the name of Jesus,” they always invoked the name orally (Acts 3:6; 16:18; 19:13).

The phrase does signify the power and authority of Jesus, but the power and authority represented by a name is always invoked by actually using the proper name.

If this phrase does not describe a baptismal formula, then neither does Matthew 28:19, since the grammatical construction is identical. However, this would leave the church without any means to distinguish Christian baptism from pagan baptisms, Jewish proselyte baptism, and John’s baptism. Although the precise wording of the baptismal accounts differs, all (including Matthew 28:19) describe the same name: Jesus.

Can't forget these two passages:

Romans 6:3​

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Galatians 3:27​

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Plus:

Using a name instead of titles in rituals, whether in witchcraft, other cults, or Christian rites, carries significant importance across various religious and spiritual traditions. In many occult and magical practices, invoking a specific name is believed to directly connect the practitioner to the entity or power they are calling upon, as names are thought to hold intrinsic power and particularity, making the invocation more effective and authoritative. Similarly, in Christianity, using the name of Jesus Christ is seen as invoking His direct presence and authority, rooted in biblical teachings that emphasize the power and significance of Jesus' name. Names provide precision and denote specific identity, which is crucial in rituals aiming to summon particular spirits or deities, whereas titles can be more generic and less effective. The New Testament emphasizes the significance of Jesus' name in various rites and practices, representing the fullness of His identity and authority. The early church practiced baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ, setting a scriptural precedent for using names rather than titles in key rites. This practice underscores the personal and salvific work of Jesus Christ, emphasizing a direct relationship with Him. Thus, using names in rituals highlights the importance of personal connection and the power inherent in names across various spiritual traditions.

We have the writings of reference to baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit that date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. That was well before the Catholic Church was formed.

You made reference to my posts of stop using the words "untrue and lying." Someone in the sources you and I presented have straight-out lied. That's a fact.

 

[First and the Last]

We have the writings of reference to baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit that date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. That was well before the Catholic Church was formed.

You made reference to my posts of stop using the words "untrue and lying." Someone in the sources you and I presented have straight-out lied. That's a fact.

If that is true I have no choice but to believe it. My only question is, Is there any written record of the Apostles and who they taught baptizing using that specific formula. When we look at the Church we have to look at where it began with the Apostles and follow their example as they follow Christ.

We have to recognize, at least in part, many trinitarian scholars have recognized at least partially the significance of the singular in Matthew 28:19. So how do we reconcile the singular name instead of names.

For example, Presbyterian professor James Buswell stated, “The ‘name,’ not ‘names,’ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in which we are to be baptized, is to be understood as Jahweh, the name of the Triune God.” His insight of the singular is correct, although his identification of the singular name is in error. Jehovah or Yahweh was the revealed name of God in the Old Testament, but Jesus is the revealed name of God in the New Testament. However, the name Jesus includes Jehovah since Jesus means Jehovah-Savior.

 

[B-A-C]

If Scripture had meant for us to understand God as three separate persons, the Holy Spirit would have clearly communicated this to the original writers

In my opinion, they did.

Oneness theology seeks to return to the biblical simplicity

So, you keep saying... but you contradict this statement frequently.

This interaction between Jesus and the Father underscores the distinction between His human will and the divine will, without implying separate divine persons.

So really He is schizophrenic, and arguing with Himself?

It's important to approach the teachings of Scripture with a balanced understanding of their authority and significance. While the words of Jesus, often depicted in red in some Bible versions, hold profound importance as they directly convey His teachings and commands,

Do you see how this contradicts your statement about "returning to the biblical simplicity". We need to apply some outside influence to scripture now, reading it isn't enough?

You think that Jesus is greater than the Holy Ghost speaking through Peter?

Yes!! Absolutely!! Peter and Paul are Apostles, yes. However, they are not God, they are not the Son of God. If you find a contradiction between then and Jesus, always go with Jesus.
Peter and Paul can't save you. Jesus can. There is a hierarchy in the Trinity. Jesus only does the what the Father tells Him to do, and the Holy Spirit only goes where Jesus tells Him to go.

historical evidence regarding Matthew 28:19. The following claims have often been leveled against this verse:

1. It doesn’t appear in any manuscript of Matthew before the third century A.D.
2. Early Christians did not follow the instruction to baptise in the formula in Matthew 28:19
3. Eusebius had an original copy of Matthew and doesn’t quote the words
4. The Catholic Church confess to changing the words
5. A Hebrew text of Matthew exists that doesn’t contain the words
6. Most modern theologians agree that the words are inauthentic

Again, you say get back to biblical simplicity, but then you say the Bible isn't accurate. You can't have it both ways.

I have noticed over the years that whenever the Bible doesn't support someone's theology. The Bible is "wrong", and they are right. Hmmm... imagine that.

 

[Charlie24]

If that is true I have no choice but to believe it. My only question is, Is there any written record of the Apostles and who they taught baptizing using that specific formula. When we look at the Church we have to look at where it began with the Apostles and follow their example as they follow Christ.

We have to recognize, at least in part, many trinitarian scholars have recognized at least partially the significance of the singular in Matthew 28:19. So how do we reconcile the singular name instead of names.

For example, Presbyterian professor James Buswell stated, “The ‘name,’ not ‘names,’ of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in which we are to be baptized, is to be understood as Jahweh, the name of the Triune God.” His insight of the singular is correct, although his identification of the singular name is in error. Jehovah or Yahweh was the revealed name of God in the Old Testament, but Jesus is the revealed name of God in the New Testament. However, the name Jesus includes Jehovah since Jesus means Jehovah-Savior.

The Didache is dated back to the 1st century by modern scholars. It contains the baptismal formula, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I'm not a fan of history when it comes to proving Scripture. I don't know if what I've written here is true or not, I haven't seen it and wouldn't know if was authentic if I did see it.

It all boils down to believing God has preserved His Words for us. What the historians have to say means nothing to me,

You either believe the Word of God as it is written, or you don't. You believe he has preserved it for us, or you don't.

 

[First and the Last]

In my opinion, they did.

This is all scripture, you argue against it, you argue against God. As @Charlie24 pointed out I have to accept that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost may have been part of the original writing I can't argue against that. name instead of names in that verse does need a little more research.

In considering the nature of God as revealed in Scripture, we must approach with reverence and careful study. The Bible unequivocally declares the oneness of God throughout both Old and New Testaments. Deuteronomy 6:4 declares, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." This foundational truth is reaffirmed by Jesus Himself in Mark 12:29, quoting this very verse to affirm the singular, unified essence of God. The Holy Spirit, in inspiring the writers of Scripture, consistently emphasizes this essential truth, guiding their pens to declare God's unity rather than a division into separate persons.

The New Testament writings, penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, continue to uphold this oneness. In passages like 1 Timothy 2:5, which states, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," we see a clear affirmation of God's singular identity and the mediation through His incarnate manifestation as Jesus Christ. This consistent testimony throughout Scripture underscores the oneness of God rather than presenting a plurality of persons.

It is through this lens of scriptural revelation that we affirm the foundational truth of God's oneness. The Holy Spirit, in inspiring the writers of Scripture, did indeed communicate this truth clearly and consistently. Our understanding of God must always be anchored in the inspired Word, which reveals His singular essence and invites us into a deeper relationship with the Almighty, who is One.

Oneness theology seeks to return to the biblical simplicity of understanding God

So, you keep saying... but you contradict this statement frequently.

No Interpretation of my own whatsoever only Scripture pretty simplistic to me:

• Deuteronomy 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
• Deuteronomy 4:35 - "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
• Deuteronomy 32:39 - "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me."
• 2 Samuel 7:22 - "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee."
• 2 Kings 19:15 - "And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone."
• 1 Chronicles 17:20 - "O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee."
• Nehemiah 9:6 - "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone."
• Psalm 86:10 - "For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone."
• Isaiah 37:16 - "O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone."
• Isaiah 43:10 - "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
• Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
• Isaiah 44:8 - "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
• Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me."
• Isaiah 45:6 - "There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."
• Isaiah 45:21 - "And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me."
• Isaiah 45:22 - "For I am God, and there is none else."
• Isaiah 46:9 - "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
• Hosea 13:4 - "For there is no saviour beside me."
• Mark 12:29 - "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
• Mark 12:32 - "There is one God; and there is none other but he."
• John 17:3 - "That they might know thee the only true God."
• Romans 3:30 - "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."
• 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "There is none other God but one."
• 1 Corinthians 8:6 - "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things."
• Galatians 3:20 - "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."
• Ephesians 4:6 - "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
• 1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
• James 2:19 - "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."

So really He is schizophrenic, and arguing with Himself?

Do you believe this and you must because its scripture? Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Then its extremely fair in scripturally correct if I say Jesus was praying to the Father who is Fully resident in Christ bodily and inseparable (except for His Omnipresence to be in all places at once) throughout ALL eternity from the very moment He was conceived.

Do you see how this contradicts your statement about "returning to the biblical simplicity". We need to apply some outside influence to scripture now, reading it isn't enough?

I understand your concern, and it's vital to ensure our approach to Scripture remains faithful and uncomplicated. When I speak of "returning to the biblical simplicity," I mean returning to the core teachings and principles that Jesus and the apostles emphasized, without adding extraneous traditions or interpretations that cloud the essential message.

Recognizing the authority and significance of all Scripture does not mean we are applying outside influences or complicating the message. Rather, it acknowledges the unity and coherence of the entire Bible as the inspired Word of God. Jesus's words, depicted in red in some versions, are indeed central and carry profound importance. They reveal His direct teachings and the essence of His mission.

However, the apostles, including Peter, spoke and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which tells us that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Their writings are not external additions but divinely inspired explanations and applications of Jesus's teachings. They help us understand how to live out the principles Jesus taught in the context of the early church and beyond.

Returning to biblical simplicity means embracing the full counsel of God's Word, as it was intended to be understood, in its entirety. This holistic approach allows us to grasp the depth of God's plan and the continuity of His revelation from Genesis to Revelation. It's about seeing the Bible as a unified whole, with Jesus at the center, and the apostles providing Spirit-inspired guidance to help us live according to His teachings. In this way, we honor the simplicity and the depth of the biblical message, without adding to or detracting from its divine truth.

Yes!! Absolutely!! Peter and Paul are Apostles, yes. However, they are not God, they are not the Son of God. If you find a contradiction between then and Jesus, always go with Jesus.
Peter and Paul can't save you. Jesus can. There is a hierarchy in the Trinity. Jesus only does the what the Father tells Him to do, and the Holy Spirit only goes where Jesus tells Him to go.

I understand the significance you place on the words and actions of Jesus, and indeed, He is our Savior and the ultimate revelation of God in the flesh. However, it's crucial to recognize that the words spoken by the apostles, including Peter and Paul, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," emphasizing that the entirety of Scripture, including the writings of the apostles, is divinely inspired and authoritative.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, the same Spirit that was in Christ Jesus. Therefore, when Peter and Paul spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were speaking the very words of God. In John 16:13, Jesus said, "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth," indicating that the Holy Spirit would faithfully communicate God's truth to His apostles.

While Jesus, in His incarnate ministry, revealed God's will and character in the most direct and personal way, the teachings and writings of the apostles, inspired by the same Spirit, are in perfect harmony with His message. There is no hierarchy in the essence of God; instead, the different manifestations of God serve to fulfill His redemptive purpose. Thus, the words of the Holy Spirit through Peter and Paul carry the same divine authority as the words of Jesus, reflecting the unified will and truth of the one true God.

Again, you say get back to biblical simplicity, but then you say the Bible isn't accurate. You can't have it both ways.

I have noticed over the years that whenever the Bible doesn't support someone's theology. The Bible is "wrong", and they are right. Hmmm... imagine that.

It's important to approach discussions about the authenticity of Scripture with humility and a commitment to seeking truth. When examining passages like Matthew 28:19, it's vital to remember that our faith rests on the whole counsel of God's Word. Historical evidence and scholarly research can help us understand the context and transmission of biblical texts, but they should not undermine our confidence in the inspired Word of God.

The claim that Matthew 28:19 may have been altered is indeed a subject of debate among scholars. However, we must also consider the broader scriptural context. The practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, as seen throughout the book of Acts (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5), aligns with the apostolic tradition and the early church's emphasis on the name of Jesus. This consistency suggests that the essential truth of baptism in Jesus' name was faithfully preserved and practiced by the apostles.

While some historical claims challenge the exact wording of Matthew 28:19, we must anchor our understanding in the overall message of Scripture. The unity of God's revelation through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not diminished by these discussions. Instead, we can affirm the oneness of God and the necessity of invoking the name of Jesus in baptism, as demonstrated by the early church.

In this dialogue, it's essential to maintain a spirit of grace and openness, recognizing that our ultimate goal is to faithfully follow the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. Let's continue to seek biblical simplicity and truth, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13), while holding fast to the integrity and inspiration of God's Word.

 

[First and the Last]

The Didache is dated back to the 1st century by modern scholars. It contains the baptismal formula, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I'm not a fan of history when it comes to proving Scripture. I don't know if what I've written here is true or not, I haven't seen it and wouldn't know if was authentic if I did see it.

It all boils down to believing God has preserved His Words for us. What the historians have to say means nothing to me,

You either believe the Word of God as it is written, or you don't. You believe he has preserved it for us, or you don't.

I am starting to see that with our conflicting research. But isn't it possible that mortal man putting the canon of Scripture together (long after the Apostles original writings were lost) could have mistakenly mistranslated some texts.