Trinitarian formula????????

[Der Alte]

I do not know how it is possible for you to not see the words "Matthew 28:19" and the word "text." It must be an act of God.

I see ALL the words in the entire paragraph, very clearly. But you do NOT! So not only are you continuing to propagate an anti-Christian lie that you copied online, but now you are making a false accusation. From my post quoted below.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith [the Creed] 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 [the Creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism.​

The subject here is the Apostle's creed. The words, "The basic form of our profession of faith," refer to the Apostles creed. No other subject has been mentioned.

The words, "So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism," refer to that same subject, the Apostles creed. Again no other subject has been mentioned. The pronouns, "its" and the word "text" refer back to the only subject mentioned, the Apostles creed.

Then the author identifies the source of the subject, i.e. the Apostles creed. "This again, speaking of the Apostles creed, was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. Still the same subject.

This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

This very clearly states that the Apostles creed is based on the words of the risen Christ. There is absolutely no way that this statement can twisted to say the text of the Triadic formula of Matthew originated anywhere but the words of Jesus.

[ . . . ]
One more time since you appear to have difficulty grasping the truth.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith [the Creed] 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 [the Creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This [the Creed] again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Link to the truth http://books.google.com/books?id=LJ...ce=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=0_1#PPA82,M1​

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

That would be a tradition. Does that tradition of yours agree with scripture or teach outside of it?

In this case, it adds to scripture thereby teaching outside of it. It would be an assumption that immersion somehow is directly tied with water, when the greek word is not. Additionally, the scripture section does not teach that water was applied to Paul or anyone else.

Again, none of the disciples were water immersed after their conversion or before it. Water in this case does not have scripture support to conclude that it has a regenerational aspect, as the person I originally quoted said it did. Sort of hard to say it does when there are no examples of the disciples using it.

Can you imagine a group having been through so much together (2000 years worth) and not having nothing to offer to go along with all her scriptural teachings about her most prized Apostle?

Tell me... are ALL the stories that The Church tells us that are not completely discussed in scripture false? Which ones are true if you dont mind me asking? None of them?

You deny what the specific Church (who was taught directly by Apostle Paul) says about Apostle Paul.

That's like finding your GreatGrandMother's diary, reading where it says she was baptized and telling your Grandmother that you don't think it was by water.

You trust the writings that they endorse as canon, and then call them liars about the finer points.

And get this... there is no reason that could be given as to why it would be to Antioch's advantage to lie about this. In fact, if she were caught in a lie would it not totally devistate her as a Christian Church?

That's rich!

Forgive me...

 

[ARBITER01]

Can you imagine a group having been through so much together (2000 years worth) and not having nothing to offer to go along with all her scriptural teachings about her most prized Apostle?

Tell me... are ALL the stories that The Church tells us that are not completely discussed in scripture false? Which ones are true if you dont mind me asking? None of them?

You deny what the specific Church (who was taught directly by Apostle Paul) says about Apostle Paul.

That's like finding your GreatGrandMother's diary, reading where it says she was baptized and telling your Grandmother that you don't think it was by water.

You trust the writings that they endorse as canon, and then call them liars about the finer points.

And get this... there is no reason that could be given as to why it would be to Antioch's advantage to lie about this. In fact, if she were caught in a lie would it not totally devistate her as a Christian Church?

That's rich!

Forgive me...

Sorry, but salvation does not rely upon any material thing. Circumcision is of the heart, by The Holy Spirit, not by anything or anyone else

The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, Jesus never said we needed anything, or in this case, anyone to reveal it to us besides His Spirit.

We could loose everything dealing with Christianity,... even the very documents that the scriptures are written on, and it would not stop GOD and His salvation to mankind.

The subject is still the disciples not being water immersed.

 

[wildboar]

I read through the first five pages of this thread so hopefully I'm not just repeating what others have said but Matthew 28:19 is the only place that we find a baptismal formula at all. There are some different Greek words being used in the various passages that don't necessarily come through in the English translations. In Matthew 28:19 we have the Greek word eis which means "into". He says to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In passages like Acts 2:38 we find the Greek word "epi" which is used when something is being done by the authority of someone else. It's a bit like saying, "Stop in the name of the law!" You are telling the person to stop based on the authority given by the law. So Acts 2:38 could very easily be translated, "Be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ." Peter is pointing back to the authority given to baptize in Matthew 28:19. Peter is not proposing a baptismal formula.

Here are some other passages that use "epi" with the Greek word for name in this way which are clearly not introducing any kind of formula to be used but speaking of someone doing something on the authority or claiming to do something on the authority of someone else:

Mark 13:6 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and will deceive many.

Matthew 18:5 "Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Here's an interesting article about the claims that Eusebius made claims that people had corrupted Matthew 28:19. It appears this rumour was started by a Mormon who apparently lost his proof somewhere: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I read through the first five pages of this thread so hopefully I'm not just repeating what others have said but Matthew 28:19 is the only place that we find a baptismal formula at all. There are some different Greek words being used in the various passages that don't necessarily come through in the English translations. In Matthew 28:19 we have the Greek word eis which means "into". He says to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In passages like Acts 2:38 we find the Greek word "epi" which is used when something is being done by the authority of someone else. It's a bit like saying, "Stop in the name of the law!" You are telling the person to stop based on the authority given by the law. So Acts 2:38 could very easily be translated, "Be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ." Peter is pointing back to the authority given to baptize in Matthew 28:19. Peter is not proposing a baptismal formula.////

Here's an interesting article about the claims that Eusebius made claims that people had corrupted Matthew 28:19. It appears this rumour was started by a Mormon who apparently lost his proof somewhere: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html

Interesting. The KJV and NASB both use "in" for that word instead of "on/upon"

Young) Acts 2:38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm

Textus Rec.) Acts 2:38 petroV de efh proV autouV metanohsate kai baptisqhtw ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati ihsou cristou eiV afesin amartiwn kai lhyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV

KJV) Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus

NASB) Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

1909. epi ep-ee' a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

 

[ezek33]

People will do and say anything to keep from acknowledging the truth.

 

[BreadAlone]

People will do and say anything to keep from acknowledging the truth.

 

[ezek33]

People will do and say anything to keep from acknowledging the truth.

Let me quote you some truth.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8 :16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[wildboar]

Interesting. The KJV and NASB both use "in" for that word instead of "on/upon"

It's a matter of good English. Being baptized "on/upon the name of Jesus" doesn't make much sense in English without explanation just as being baptized "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" doesn't make much sense either without some explanation. The translators of the KJV also probably weren't expecting people to start thinking that the Acts 2 passage was providing some sort of baptismal formula contrary to that found in Matthew 28. They probably assumed people would read it the same way a person would read "Stop in the name of the law" and not as some formula.

BDAG is the standard New Testament Greek lexicon and it has a rather lengthy entry for epi and its many uses that goes on for pages and pages but I don't see anything about it being used in formulas in the same way eis is used in Matthew 28:19. It says the basic idea is "upon." The more precise meaning is determined by the context. BDAG lists it in this section and I find it difficult to argue with:

17. marker in idiom of authorization, w. dat.: the formula ev. tw/| ovnomati, tinoj, in the name of someone, used w. many verbs (Just., D. 39, 6 w. gi,nesqai, otherw. ev. ovno,matoj, e.g. A I, 61, 13; w. dia. tou/ ov. and in oaths kata. tou/ ov. A II, 6, 6, D. 30, 3; 85, 2.—Ath. 23, 1 ev. ovno,mati eivdw,lwn.— evn tw/| ovno,mati LXX; JosAs 9:1), focuses on the authorizing function of the one named in the gen. (cp. WHeitmüller [‘Im Namen Jesu’ 1903, 13ff], ‘in connection with, or by the use of, i.e. naming, or calling out, or calling upon the name’ [88]): bapti,zein Ac 2:38. de,cesqai, tina Mt 18:5; Mk 9:37; Lk 9:48. dida,skein Ac 4:18; 5:28. du,namin poiei/n Mk 9:39. evkba,llein daimo,nia Lk 9:49 v.l. e;rcesqai Mt 24:5; Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8. khru,ssein 24:47. lalei/n Ac 4:17; 5:40. Semantically divergent from the preceding, but formulaically analogous, is kalei/n tina ev. tw/| ovn. tinoj name someone after someone (2 Esdr 17:63) Lk 1:59.

People will do and say anything to keep from acknowledging the truth.

Like claim to have manuscripts they can't produce?

 

[ezek33]

People will do and say anything to keep from acknowledging the truth.

Like claim to have manuscripts they can't produce?

Ummm? I guess? but that has nothing do you with me? I have never claimed to have any documents, just scripture.

 

[GuardianShua]

I see ALL the words in the entire paragraph, very clearly. But you do NOT! So not only are you continuing to propagate an anti-Christian lie that you copied online, but now you are making a false accusation. From my post quoted below.

It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith [the Creed] 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 [the Creed] comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism.​

The subject here is the Apostle's creed. The words, "The basic form of our profession of faith," refer to the Apostles creed. No other subject has been mentioned.

The words, "So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism," refer to that same subject, the Apostles creed. Again no other subject has been mentioned. The pronouns, "its" and the word "text" refer back to the only subject mentioned, the Apostles creed.

Then the author identifies the source of the subject, i.e. the Apostles creed. "This again, speaking of the Apostles creed, was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. Still the same subject.

This very clearly states that the Apostles creed is based on the words of the risen Christ. There is absolutely no way that this statement can twisted to say the text of the Triadic formula of Matthew originated anywhere but the words of Jesus.

OK, fine. Then the creed lead to the change to include: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because here is what is written before Constantine decreed the Holy Spirit to be a third person. And then there is other scripture that has baptism in his name only.


"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. 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." That "Name" is Jesus.

Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it is today in our modern Bibles, but he always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

 

[ARBITER01]

Interesting. The KJV and NASB both use "in" for that word instead of "on/upon"

Young) Acts 2:38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm

Textus Rec.) Acts 2:38 petroV de efh proV autouV metanohsate kai baptisqhtw ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati ihsou cristou eiV afesin amartiwn kai lhyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV

KJV) Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus

NASB) Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

1909. epi ep-ee' a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

Upon the name of Jesus is correct since it is He who we are asking forgiveness from, and it is with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

"Into" the forgiveness of thy sins tends to confuse a lot people, but this is mainly because of a non-translated Greek word, baptise. That is a transliterated word, not a translated english word of the Greek. The correct english translation of that word would be "immersed." So we would have the passage as such,..

Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be "immersed" each of thee "upon" the name of Jesus Christ "into" the forgiveness of thy sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We gotta remember what Jesus said was going to happen after His departure,..

Act 1:5 for John indeed immersed in water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

John the baptist used water, but it was only symbolic of what Jesus was going to do with The Holy Spirit to us, hence the "into" the forgiveness of thy sins ie the application of the blood by The Holy Spirit. Our salvation is completely a spiritual event, not a material event.

 

[lionroar0]

Really?

Yes really.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

That would be a tradition. Does that tradition of yours agree with scripture or teach outside of it?

In this case, it adds to scripture thereby teaching outside of it. It would be an assumption that immersion somehow is directly tied with water, when the greek word is not. Additionally, the scripture section does not teach that water was applied to Paul or anyone else.

Again, none of the disciples were water immersed after their conversion or before it. Water in this case does not have scripture support to conclude that it has a regenerational aspect, as the person I originally quoted said it did. Sort of hard to say it does when there are no examples of the disciples using it.

And here we see the rise of gnosticism with in modern christianity.

Peace

 

[ARBITER01]

And here we see the rise of gnosticism with in modern christianity.

Peace

Sorry but truth is not gnosticism. None of the disciples were ever water immersed. That, again, is just a tradition, and a false one at that, since it has no scripture support.

 

[GuardianShua]

That would be a tradition. Does that tradition of yours agree with scripture or teach outside of it?

In this case, it adds to scripture thereby teaching outside of it. It would be an assumption that immersion somehow is directly tied with water, when the greek word is not. Additionally, the scripture section does not teach that water was applied to Paul or anyone else.

Again, none of the disciples were water immersed after their conversion or before it. Water in this case does not have scripture support to conclude that it has a regenerational aspect, as the person I originally quoted said it did. Sort of hard to say it does when there are no examples of the disciples using it.

The example we are given is by Christ himself, whom did not need to be Baptised, but did so to show the importance of the act of baptism.

 

[ARBITER01]

The example we are given is by Christ himself, whom did not need to be Baptised, but did so to show the importance of the act of baptism.

Sorry, but no.

There are no water immersion events happening when The Holy Spirit arrives that day on Pentecost, Jesus merely used water to signify the event to happen to the believer when The Holy Spirit was to arrive after His departure,..

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.

Check scripture, anyone can see that none of the disciples were ever water immersed. It was never a requirement for salvation. It's a requirement if you want to join certain church's, but not for GOD's salvation.

 

[MrPolo]

You trust the writings that they endorse as canon, and then call them liars about the finer points.

This is a common fatal flaw in those who believe the early Church to be infallible when it comes to determining the canon, but absolutely not to be believed or trusted when interpreting its contents.

 

[ARBITER01]

This is a common fatal flaw in those who believe the early Church to be infallible when it comes to determining the canon, but absolutely not to be believed or trusted when interpreting its contents.

Not trusting a church and it's doctrine is not a fatal flaw, that would be common sense. People choose to trust The Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth after salvation, just like Jesus said He would. We are to hear Jesus, not an altar built by man.

Sorry, but the catholic church (or any other church for that matter) does not have the market cornered on who receives The Holy Spirit.

 

[GuardianShua]

Sorry, but no.

There are no water immersion events happening when The Holy Spirit arrives that day on Pentecost, Jesus merely used water to signify the event to happen to the believer when The Holy Spirit was to arrive after His departure,..



Check scripture, anyone can see that none of the disciples were ever water immersed. It was never a requirement for salvation. It's a requirement if you want to join certain church's, but not for GOD's salvation.

There are examples in the Old Testament of people receiving the Holy Spirit before Christ came and departed. Baptism of water is for repentance of sin. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for those in the role of leadership, and water is not required for that.