Is Matt 28:19 fake?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Lorelei, Sep 9, 2002.

  1. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was speaking with someone the other day and we were discussing the trinity. They said that this verse was not in the original texts, but was added later to uphold Catholic doctrine.

    Has anyone ever heard this argument? I have heard about the controversy over the last part of the chapter of the book of Mark, but not the end of Matthew.

    Is there any evidence to support this claim or is this just a lie propagated by Oneness believers?

    ~Lorelei
     
  2. Alliswell

    Alliswell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    The Oneness people that I know do not deny that Matthew 28 is the Word of God.

    They just say that the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit IS Jesus!!!

    If I sign a check and give it to you, you can go to the bank in my NAME and get money. Actually, it is my AUTHORITY to allow you to do that.

    Jesus had just said "All Power (Authority) is given to ME in heaven and on earth."

    I do not think he was giving us a formula for what to say when baptizing, but there is certainly a beautiful truth in repeating His words during the baptizing.

    In the book of Acts, it always says they baptized in the name of Jesus. I take that to mean under the command and authority that Jesus gave them in Matthew 28.

    I won't fall out with them over it, but they tend to fall out with us for using the words, "In obedience to his command, I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

    Shalom :D

    Alli
     
  3. hrhema

    hrhema
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the 70's there was an article in either Life or Look about the Worship of Mary. In the article one of the well known Archbishops of that time said that Protestants condemn Catholics for worshipping Mary because it is not a Biblical doctrine but they follow a non Biblical doctrine also and that is the doctrine of the Trinity.
    He cited the fact that this doctrine was not taught by the Early Apostles and that the two scriptures used by Protestants to defend this doctrine Matthew 28:19 and I John 5 were not in the original manuscripts. He claimed the Roman Catholic church was very aware that Baptism using the titles was not used by the Apostles and they baptized in Jesus' name. I used to own a copy of this article but lost it somehow in the move. I have tried to find a copy of it for a long time.

    In the 50's, 60's and 70's there were KJV bibles which had italics around certain words and scriptures which meant they were not part of the original manuscript. Matthew 28:19 was one of these. Not all KJV versions at this time had this but many did.

    I don't understand why many Trinitarians get up in arms over using the name of Jesus as taught in the Book of Acts. Salvation does come through Jesus so what is the problem? This does not do away with the Trinity. There were plenty of preachers who baptized in the name of Jesus way before the Oneness message ever became an issue.

    The message of the gospel has always been a Christocentric message. If not then we need to be saying I accept the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as my personal saviours.

    So many people jump on the KJV bandwagon as this is the only correct interpretation of the Bible but they don't stop and think but take the KJV and compare it to the Catholic Bible and you will find they are exactly the same Bible except the KJV does not include the apocryphal writings. Why is this so? King James was a catholic monarch and those who interpreted the scriptures then were Catholic monks and priests.

    Was Matthew 28:19 in the original transcripts translated in 1611. I don't know. Many older Catholic apologists say no.
     
  4. Abiyah

    Abiyah
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/abiyah.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rhema --

    I am curious why you keep saying that King
    James was Catholic. Anyone minorly interested
    could check history and quickly learn this is not
    so. What is your agenda?
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,168
    Likes Received:
    322
    Please name one.

    Matthew 28:19 is an undisputed passage.

    Even the NWT includes it as genuine without comment.

    HankD

    [ September 09, 2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  6. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    The reading you refer to is the same in all the modern translations, without footnoting. Even the NET Bible, which has a footnote for practically everything, is silent.

    James was not Catholic; he was head of the Church of England and had been brought up by Scottish Protestants. As to the monks and nuns, Henry had suppressed the monasteries long before James arrived.

    [ September 09, 2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]
     
  7. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes...I agree Abiyah. The Catholic Bible has the Books called "Apocrypha".

    This is a group of books that have been considered a bibical literature, but are not considered as part of the Bible.

    Apocrypha means "hidden from". Which is misleading because they were never hidden from or done in secret. So for the Protestant it has been come to be known as "uncertain authority and credit." --The Apocrypha KJV Published by World Bible Publishers.

    These books are:

    1 Esdras
    2 Esdras
    Tobit
    Judith
    The Rest Of Esther
    The Wisdom Of Solomon
    Ecclesiasticus
    Baruch, with the Epistle of Jerimiah
    The Song of the Three Holy Children
    The History of Susanna
    Bel and the Dragon
    The Prayer of Manasses
    1Maccabees
    2Maccabees

    The Roman Chatholic Church does recognize the greater portion of these books.

    They were written as an reflection of the conflicts and tensions that the Hebrew people were going through at that paticular time in history.

    Sherrie
     
  8. Thankful

    Thankful
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/BettyE.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,430
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    hrhema asked:

    Was Matthew 28:19 in the original transcripts translated in 1611. I don't know. Many older Catholic apologists say no.

    The "older Catholic apologists" are clueless. Matt. 28:19 is of undisputed authenticity, the only people disputing it being those with a vested interest in its nonexistence (e.g. Oneness Pentecostals and the like).

    King James was a catholic monarch and those who interpreted the scriptures then were Catholic monks and priests.

    This is factually incorrect on both counts.
     
  10. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just some facts!

    1. Every Greek manuscript reads the same at Matthew 28:19. The only manuscript variants are found in verses 17 and 20 and neither of them deal with the subject at hand.

    2. Every edition of the KJV contains Matthew 28:19 from the first printing of the first edition of the 1611, through the 1762/1769 Cambridge/Oxford editions currently in print. No KJV has ever placed any part of Matthew 28:19 in italics, enclosed it in brackets, parenthesis, etc. The only such brackets, parenthesis, italics, or other marks in any edition of the KJV are in the New Scofield Reference Bible where the last word of verse in is enclosed in brackets [Spirit] to indicate it was changed from the KJV reading of "Ghost."

    3. King James VI of Scotland, I of England was a Scots Presbyterian not a Catholic. How many times do we have to put this folly to rest? This false and specious claim has been thoroughly refuted. The king was a convinced Presbyterian, who, in 1584 secured a series of acts that made him the head of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, with the power to appoint the church's bishops. Upon assuming the throne of England in 1603 he became head of the Church of England. To try to claim the man was Catholic is pure folly!
     
  11. Alliswell

    Alliswell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I have a problem with the Jerusalem Catholic New Testament leaving out Acts 8:37 which is the benchmark verse for believer's baptism.

    The NIV and other modern translations that used the Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from Catholic sources, also leave it out but put it in the footnotes.

    The Jerusalem Bible says, "At the time when numbered verses were introduced, there was a
    gloss
    numbered 37!

    Shalom :D

    Alli
     
  12. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    So it was just some article? Did this archbishop offer any proof whatsoever? You, see, you have people believing it and I have yet to see any proof that it is true.

    I do thank you for explaining where this argument came from, I certainly had not heard of it before.

    I want to thank everyone who has responded. I personally didn't think it was disputable, but I didn't know if there was any controversy over this text as there has been with some others.

    It seems pretty clear from the response that this verse is undisputed.

    ~Lorelei
     
  13. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Doc,

    One minor thing. When James VI of Scotland became King James I of England he quickly turned away from Scottish Presbyterianism and embraced the Church of England. He never forgave the Scottish Protestants for holding him "prisoner" for about a year in a castle in Scotland when he was 14 years old. He embraced the Church of England due to its strong belief in the office of Bishop and its combination of Church and State. It, the Chruch of England, offered him more power as a king then the Scottish Protestants were willing to give.

    [ September 12, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
     
  14. hrhema

    hrhema
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doc Cas I am sorry but you are very wrong about what you said about the KJV.

    The King James version of the bible released in 1611 and revised in 1629, 1632, 1638, 1657, 1762, 1769, and forward was written in Black lettering with small italicized roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.
    The King James Bible included the apocrypha until 1885 so those who created this Bible and the Christian world until this time accepted these writings. Protestants blame Catholicism for these books and say they were Catholic books only but that is not true. The Church of England until 1885 accepted these writings.

    The Roman Catholic church does claim that James was secretly under their control. Whether or not there is any truth to that or not may never be learned. History can be prejudiced. There were also stories that he was blatant Homosexual too. This has been hotly debated for hundreds of years. Both of these stories. All kinds of evidences have been presented.

    In Books on the history of the Bible and even
    websites that I have found it states that the men who James used were basically Protestant but because of a Catholic instituted Assassination attempt on James life he brought two Catholic monks into the group to show the Catholics that he was better then them. So this is where individuals feel there was some catholic control.
    Not only that but according to history these men who did the translations also used the Great Bible, The Bishops bible, The Matthew Bible, The Jerome Latin Vulgate Bible (which was CAtholic)
    as guides to their translations.
     
  15. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again, hrhema, you have conclusively proven you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
     
  16. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is true, but the question is, was Matthew 28:19 in italics? I have been doing some surfing and I can't find any evidence that it was.

    I have even found sites where Oneness people are showing that 1 John is indeed in italics. They go on to talk about Matthew being disputed, but never mention that it was in italics nor do they say what was disputable about it. Another site went to agree that it wasn't disputed, but argued since there are not texts until about 300AD to test it against, they feel it was added in. Again, there is no proof, it is purely speculation.

    I found another site that showed all the changes and the only note about Matthew 28:19 was in the 1769 Oxford edition which read "28:19 Or, make disciples, or, Christians of all nations". So even here, no notation is made stating that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were not in the original texts. Below is the link to that site.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv.html

    ~Lorelei
     
  17. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    It may be of some interest that this verse (19) existed long before the KJV of 1611. So much so that the Eastern churches baptized three times,,,in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit....This practice extended in to early Germany,,,and even to the turn of the century America with the Tunkers or Dunkards.
    The point being, early manuscripts included this verse as part of Matthew.
    There no law on this and it is quite appropriate, and scriptural, to baptize in the name of Jesus,,,,but quite fitting to baptize in the name of the trinity,,,,especially for those who came from no religion.

    Cheers in the Triune God,

    Jim
     
  18. hrhema

    hrhema
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not disputing this scriptures existence to take the Oneness viewpoint. Far from that. My point is and always has been that both formulas are in the present Bible and both formulas can be used and there should be absolutely no controversy over this. Not only that I think every church group that believes in immersion should not exclusively say in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost in their by laws. As long as either formula is used I think that should be left up to the individual pastor.

    I cannot see Godhead doctrine or baptismal formula
    as a salvific issue. There is more than one belief in the Trinity. The original doctrine was three separate and distinct persons, co-equal, co-eternal. Others teach three personalities. Then there are those who say the Father is spirit, the son is a person and the Holy Ghost is spirit.

    Just because Oneness people are so narrow minded and dogmatic should not keep a person from being able to use either baptismal formulas which both are scriptural.
     
  19. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thier narrowmindedness is not only causing them to reject our formula it is causing them to question the Word of God. They are trying to say that this verse should not be in the Bible. The only reason why is because they don't agree with it! They have no proof as to why it is disputable other than the fact that they don't like what it says. This is very dangerous ground to tread! We can't rewrite the word to fit our doctrine, it just does NOT work that way!

    I didn't ask the question to prove one way right or another way wrong. I simply wanted to know if there was any proof to their claims that this verse was later added in. I have found no such proof. This shows me that they are purely speculating based upon thier own personal bias against baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit.

    ~Lorelei
     
  20. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    For clarification:

    I am not accusing all Oneness people to have taken this stand against Matt 28:19. However, there are those who have done so and those are the ones that I was referring to in my comments above.

    ~Lorelei
     

Share This Page

Loading...