A scripture that awaits to be seen in the light... (Matthew 28:19)

@Brother Rando September 16 The Historian Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339), had extensive access to the Library that kept a copy of the original text of Matthew. Eusebius was also a Bishop whom quoted the Shem Tov Book of Matthew some seventeen times and all quotes of (Matthew 28:19) were quotes of one accord with no variations, (In My Name).

@Brother Rando September 16 "In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times in the same form as the above quotations. Now you must also be aware that this quotation by Eusebius is also earlier than our earliest manuscripts for this verse. Hence, it is quite possible that a corruption occurred around the time the Arian controversy broke out under Constantine's reign. The following quotation is particularly interesting:

@Brother Rando September 16 For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in his name”.

Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese

1. What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicæa, you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, the second, which [the Fathers] put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:—

2. “As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:”—

3. “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost:

“believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Concerning Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to shew and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.”

4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:—

The Faith dictated in the Council

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—

“And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.”

“And in the Holy Ghost.”

“And those who say, ‘Once He was not,’ and ‘Before His generation He was not,’ and ‘He came to be from nothing,’ or those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘Of other subsistence or essence,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘alterable,’ or ‘mutable,’ the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.

6. In the same way we also admitted “begotten, not made;” since the Council alleged that “made” was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of an essence which is too high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father5, the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every originated nature.

7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is “one in essence” with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because “one in essence with the Father” suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father2. To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term “one in essence,” in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.

8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by thee forementioned considerations. And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once He was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.

9. Moreover to anathematize “Before His generation He was not,” did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.

10. Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages, since even before He was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always, and Saviour always, being all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same way.

11. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already published.

 Eusebius of Caesarea, “Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the People of His Diocese,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 74–76.

A textual question involves the presence of the Trinitarian formula, “into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Eusebius cited the command in various forms, most often omitting the phrase about the Trinity. This led to the conclusion that he knew the text in a shortened form, “Go, make disciples of all the nations in my name.” Since all other textual witnesses give the full text, most textual critics have accepted it as original. An examination of Eusebius’s references where the baptismal command was omitted shows that it was superfluous to the context (for in every case the emphasis was on the universality of Christ’s teaching in contrast to previous religious and civil law), and consideration of Eusebius’s method of citing Scripture (omitting phrases he counted irrelevant and blending phrases from other passages he counted pertinent) deprives the argument for a shorter text of any validity. New arguments, however, from context and from the poetry-like structure of other passages in Matthew have been advanced in support of a shorter text as original in Matthew 28:19. It seems more likely to me that Eusebius paraphrased when his interest was the apostles’ mission or the Lord’s ethical teaching and cited the full text when Trinitarian concerns were at the forefront. The early and general acceptance of baptism in the Trinitarian name and the presence of the long form of the verse in all manuscripts and all witnesses to the text (except for Eusebius, and even in some places by him) are difficult to account for on other grounds than that the words are original in Matthew (especially when one considers that Matthew was the most widely used Gospel in the second century). Some words were necessary at the baptism—spoken either by the administrator, the candidate, or both—to show its purpose and distinguish it from what others did.

 Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 133–135.

The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ

1 After Nero had held the power thirteen years, and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.

2 For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described. 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 unto 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.”

3 But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

4 But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time, the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.

5 But it is necessary to state that this writer records that the multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of the Passover, to the number of three million souls, were shut up in Jerusalem “as in a prison,” to use his own words.

6 For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of God, that in those days, shut up “as in a prison,” they should meet with destruction at the hands of divine justice.

7 But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.

 Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 138–139.

“A son honors his father, and a slave his master; but if I am a father, where is my honor, and if I am a master, where is my reverence?” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. “But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’ You are presenting defiled food on my altar! But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ By saying that the table of יהוה Yahweh is despised! When you offer a blind animal for sacrifice, is that not wrong? And when you offer the lame and the one who is ill, is that not wrong? Present it, please, to your governor! Will he be pleased with you? Will he show you favor?” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. So then, implore the favor of God so that he will be gracious to us. “This is what you have done. Will he show favor to any of you?” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. “Who also among you will shut the temple doors so that you will not kindle fire in vain on my altar? I take no pleasure in you,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts, “and I will not accept an offering from your hand. From the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is being presented to my name, and a pure offering. For my name is great among the nations,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. “But you are profaning it by saying the table of the Lord is defiled, and its fruit—its food—is despised! And you say, ‘Look! This is a weariness,’ and you sniff with disdain at it,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts. “And you bring the stolen, the lame, and the one that is sick—this you bring as the offering! Should I accept it from your hand?” says יהוה Yahweh. “Cursed is the one who cheats, who has in his flock a male and vows it, but instead sacrifices a blemished one to the Lord! For I am a great king,” says יהוה Yahweh of hosts, “and my name is awesome among the nations.”

Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming. You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”

“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’

@Brother Rando September 18 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Christ

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 18 Hence requesting @Brother Rando to provide Eusebius shortened form quote(s) with baptismal context.

@Brother Rando September 18 Yes, I have waded through those same waters. But I am of the opinion that outside sources are not needed here.

18 And Yeshua came and said to them, "YHWH gave me power in the heavens and in the earth. 19 Therefore go preach to all the peoples, and immerse them in the name of the Father and the Son and of Ruach Ha-Qodesh, and teach them, and keep all that I commanded you. 20 And I will be with you in all time, until the end of the world."

Previously, the most highly attested Hebrew version of Matthew was the Shem Tov version. It contains many Hebraisms, puns, and word plays, as well as Hebrew keywords linking different sections together. It solves several contradictions in the Greek tradition of Matthew, and has been studied much in the past few decades.

The problem with the Shem Tov version is that it was copied by people who denied Yeshua, rejected him as Messiah, and deleted every instance in which Matthew calls Yeshua 'the Messiah'. So, can one trust the Shem Tov version to be accurate ? It also contains unsolvable contradictions, e.g. it is impossible to show from the Shem Tov that Yeshua was in the grave for three days and three nights.

On the other hand, the Vat. Ebr. 100 manuscript used for this translation is in a totally different class, as it clearly equates Yeshua with the Messiah, and openly declares him the Son of El. It also solves many questions and supposed contradictions ! Although it seems to be a translation from Catalan back into Hebrew, the manuscript is full of linguistic proofs showing that there is no way it could possibly be a derivative of the Greek, nor of Jerome's Latin version, as some have claimed.

Thus the Catalan version it probably derived from, had to come from an authentic Hebrew manuscript. There are many instances in which the Greek gospels (which were later translated into Latin) could easily be a translation from a Hebrew manuscript similar to Vat. Ebr. 100, but impossible that this manuscript could originate from the Greek or Latin. We are planning to publish these linguistic evidences, and numerous other interesting discoveries in a separate series of articles, rather than having them all mixed up and scattered throughout the footnotes.

@Brother Rando September 18 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name"

28 manuscripts containing the Gospel of Matthew of Shem Tob are known to have survived until the present time. These manuscripts are dated between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. 

@Brother Rando September 18 "Also, whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in  connection with the Son." (John 14:23)

@Brother Rando September 18 "But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all  things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you." (John 14:26)

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in אלהים God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places; but if not, I would have told you, because I am going away to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.”

Thomas said to him, “יהוה Lord, we do not know where you are going. How are we able to know the way?”

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him, “יהוה Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

Jesus said to him, “Am I with you so long a time and you have not known me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in me, the works that I am doing he will do also, and he will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, in order that he may be with you forever — the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not see him or know him. You know him, because he resides with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. Yet a little time and the world will see me no longer, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. The one who has my commandments and keeps them — that one is the one who loves me. And the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”

Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “יהוה Lord, why is it that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and will take up residence with him. The one who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me. These things I have spoken to you while residing with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name — that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of everything that I said to you. “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you — not as the world gives, I give to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. You have heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am. And now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no power over me. But so that the world may know that I love the Father, and just as the Father has commanded me, thus I am doing. Get up, let us go from here!

Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming. You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”

“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’

@Brother Rando September 19 The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:

@Brother Rando September 19 “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

state, and he gives no countenance, whatever to this modern opinion of total depravity." It is the same with Calvin's affirmation of the irresistible action of God on the will. Cunningham shows that these doctrines are irreconcilable with liberty and responsibility, whereas, on the contrary, "St. Austin is careful to attempt to harmonize the belief in God's omnipotence with human responsibility" (St. Austin, p. 86). The Council of Trent was therefore faithful to the true spirit of the African Doctor, and maintained pure Augustinism in the bosom of the Church, by Its definitions against the two opposite excesses. Against Pelagianism it reaffirmed original sin and the absolute necessity of grace (Sess. VI, can. 2); against Protestant predestinationism it proclaimed the freedom of man, with his double power of resisting grace (posse dissentire si velit -- Sess. VI, can. 4) and of doing good or evil, even before embracing the Faith (can. 6 and 7).

In the seventeenth century Jansenism adopted, while modifying it, the Protestant conception of original sin and the state of fallen man. No more than Luther did the Jansenists admit the two orders, natural and supernatural. All the gifts which Adam had received immortality, knowledge, integrity, sanctifying grace -- are absolutely required by the nature of man. Original sin is, therefore, again regarded as a profound alteration of human nature. From which the Jansenists conclude that the key to St. Augustine's system is to be found in the essential difference of the Divine government and of grace, before and after the Fall of Adam. Before the Fall Adam enjoyed complete liberty, and grace gave him the power of resisting or obeying; after the Fall there was no longer in men liberty properly so called; there was only spontaneity (libertas a coactione, and not libertas a necessitate). Grace, or delectation in the good, is essentially efficacious, and necessarily victorious once it is superior in degree to the opposite concupiscence. The struggle, which was prolonged for two centuries, led to a more profound study of the Doctor of Hippo and prepared the way for the definite triumph of Augustinism, but of an Augustinism mitigated in accordance with laws which we must now indicate.

(3) Laws which governed the mitigation of Augustinism

In spite of what Protestant critics may have said, the Church has always been faithful to the fundamental principles defended by Augustine against the Pelagians and Semipelagians, on original sin, the necessity and gratuity of grace, the absolute dependence on God for salvation. Nevertheless, great progress was made along the line of gradual mitigation. For it cannot be denied that the doctrine formulated at Trent, and taught by all our theologians, produces an impression of greater suavity

263

The elders will make sure that a person desiring baptism has acquired a reasonable understanding of basic Bible teachings. Additionally, they will want to ascertain whether he deeply appreciates the truth and demonstrates proper respect for Jehovah’s organization. If the person does not understand basic Bible teachings, the elders will arrange for him to receive personal assistance so that he can qualify for baptism at a later time. Others may need to be given time to demonstrate more appreciation for field service or submissiveness to organizational arrangements. It will be up to the elders to use discretion in apportioning the hour or so spent in each session in order to discern fully whether the person is ready for baptism. Although more time may be spent on certain questions and less time on others, all the questions should be reviewed.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 20 Website ccel.org has a pdf of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, whose page 263 (Assizes to Baal) does not mention baptism at all =>

@Brother Rando September 20 Of course your cult of the Catholic Church of the AntiChrist would assize to Baal by removing Jesus Christ from scripture, and it's not the only time CHRIST removed by you evildoers.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. 

Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen. 

@Brother Rando September 20 Your deception came from the city of Pagan Rome. It's coming to it's destruction. Good riddens! Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83 claims “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.”

Chapter 2

The Ecclesiastical form of Faith

1. introductory remarks on the history and structure of the apostles’ creed

All that we have said so far has done no more than attempt to answer the formal question of what belief as such is and where in the world of modern thought it can find a starting point and a function to perform. The more far-reaching problems relating to its content thus necessarily remained open — with the whole subject perhaps looking only too pale and ill-defined. The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. 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 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 comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. 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.” In accordance with this injunction, three questions are put to the person to be baptized: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God …? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit …?” The person being baptized replies to each of these three questions with the word “credo”—I believe—and is then each time immersed in the water. Thus the oldest form of the confession of faith takes the shape of a tripartite dialogue, of question and answer, and is, moreover, embedded in the ceremony of baptism.

 Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83.

@Brother Rando September 20 Jehovah Witnesses are the only true Christians that worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and truth.

“Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’

@Brother Rando

"Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83."

"There is no such thing as an Apostle Creed in the first century. "

"Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19."

“The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.”

"The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”"

@Brother Rando September 21 The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:

“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”

§ b Kinds of Criticism—Criticism may be defined as the art of distinguishing, in a literary work, what is genuine from what is false, what is authentic (due to the original author) from what is additional, and evaluating the whole in terms of literary and other relevant standards. It is commonly distinguished into textual criticism, literary, i.e. ‘higher’ criticism, and historical criticism, this last being understood in a broad sense, since its nature varies greatly according to the kind of matter dealt with—historical, theological, legal, etc. § c Of this art textual criticism is a fundamental branch. It is chiefly exercised on material transmitted through a manuscript tradition (as opposed to printed work in which it finds little scope) Its task is to eliminate accidental corruptions of the text (usually copyists’ errors) and establish the ipsissima verba, in their original order, of the author or final editor. Given that text, as nearly as it can be established, ‘higher’ or literary criticism then has the task of determining its origin and mode of composition, i.e. the author or authors, the materials used and to what extent they were recast, what kind of work the author intended to write, etc. After this analysis the third type of criticism (often grouped with the second as ‘higher’) judges the value and significance of the work, its importance in history, and synthesizes the information that may be drawn from it.

 R. A. Dyson and R. A. F. Mackenzie, “Higher Criticism: With Special Reference to the OldTestament,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 61.

§ g 7–15. Digression on Prayer (Lk 11:1–4)—First a warning, 7–8, then the ideal prayer, 9–13. 7–8. There must be no gabbling over empty formulae. This is superstition like that of the pagans who feared to omit from their prayer the name of one god or the mention of one request. The Christian is not forbidden to lay his needs before God (though he already knows them) but he should do so in simple, general terms, and in a trustful spirit. Needless to say, repetition of such simple prayer as the Rosary is by no means discouraged provided it does not become mechanical. We use repetition not to secure God’s attention, but to sustain our own. 9–13. The Ideal Prayer. Mt’s text of the ‘Our Father ‘is longer than Lk’s. There are three prayers for the glory of God (‘hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done’) with an expansion (‘as in heaven so on earth’) and three personal requests: for food, forgiveness, freedom from temptation, with an expansion of this last (‘but deliver us from evil’). Lk has neither of the expansions and omits ‘Thy will be done’. The Jewish colouring of Mt’s text (obscured in Lk’s, cf. *Allen, 58) and its Semitic balance powerfully suggest that Mt represents the original form of the prayer, abbreviated and simplified by Lk. Lk, however, has probably given the prayer its exact chronological setting. Most of the phrases of the prayer are to be found in Jewish sources (cf. SB 1, 406–25) but its simple brevity and the deliberate exclusion of the spirit of Jewish nationalism (markedly present, e.g. in the great Jewish prayer, the Tephillah or Shemoneh Esre) prove that though the body may be Jewish, the soul is Christian (Buzy). The tenderness and trust of the whole prayer are revealed in the bold word ‘Father’. § h The phrase ‘our Father’ draws our Lord’s followers together as children of one family. It is fitting that the first ejaculations should be addressed to the Father’s honour which, however, is always inseparable from man’s benefit. The Christian prays that the holiness of the divine ‘name’ (i.e. in Semitic expression, the person as known and revealed) may be recognized. Since this ‘holiness’ is not only God’s sacred remoteness, Lev 10:3 etc., but his absolute moral perfection, Ez 36:21 ff., the recognition means man’s practical acceptance of his Father’s commands. 10. The second petition implies the same recognition but, this time, rather of God’s kingship establishing itself increasingly in the hearts of men. The third (‘thy will be done’) declares clearly what is latent in the first two: effective acknowledgement of God as Father and King is accomplished by filial and loyal subjection. May this be as perfect as that of the angels! (Ps 102:19 ff.; Lagrange). 11. The second half of the prayer also has three members which, unlike those of the first half, are direct petitions for our needs. Of these, the first (‘Give us this day our supersubstantial bread’: τὸν ἄρτον ἠμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δός ἡμῖν σήμερον) is a request for the simple necessaries of life, embraced in the term ‘bread’. The word ‘supersubstantial’ (Vg translation of ἐπιούσιον which, however, it renders ‘daily’ in Lk 11:3) suggests ‘excellent’, ‘special’ (περιούσιον) as it did for Jerome (PL 26, 43; cf. Prat II, 35 note) and favours a Eucharistic reference. Nevertheless, the word ἐπιούσιος (so far found only once elsewhere and with meaning uncertain, cf. JTS 35, 377) will not bear this translation. Etymologically it means either ‘necessary for subsistence’ (ἐπί + οὐσία) or ‘for the day that lies before us’ (ἐπί + ἰοῦσα, i.e. ‘belonging to the coming’ day, cf. Prov 27:1, LXX). This second meaning, though in itself more probable, makes the phrase ‘this day’ redundant. It may therefore be preferable to accept a third explanation (*Black, 149–53) and read ‘Give us our bread day by day’ as a more exact rendering of an Aramaic idiom (wrongly translated in the Gk) which runs literally ‘of today and the following day’. § i 12. The next petition is for forgiveness of sins, called ‘debts’ in Mt and in common Jewish parlance (Lk has simplified to ‘sins’). We ask forgiveness on conditions that must make us reflect on our own conduct towards those who have injured us (cf. 14 and 18:32–35). 13 is probably one petition put negatively and positively (the latter being omitted by Lk). It asks that our Father should not ‘lead’ us into temptation. Since God tempts no man, Jas 1:13, the phrase ‘lead us not’ may be understood ‘permit us not to go’ (in the Semitic manner, cf. Joüon & WV note). Nor does the word ‘temptation’ necessarily imply a direct invitation to sin; it may indicate circumstances which, for us, prove to be an occasion of sin. The prayer ends with a final cry for deliverance from all moral evil (probably—in view of Mt’s usual sense of τὸ πονηρόν—not ‘from the evil one’). The word ‘Amen’ is a later, liturgical addition. So also are doxologies like: ‘For thine is the kingdom …’, probably added (*Plummer) to avoid ending the prayer with the word ‘evil’. 14–15 explain and underline in antithetic parallelism (cf. § 313e) the condition of divine forgiveness implied in the petition of 12.

 A. Jones, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St Matthew,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 863.

19. Jesus’ universal Lordship now demands a universal mission. The restriction of the disciples’ mission to Israel alone in 10:5–6 can now be lifted, for the kingdom of the Son of man as described in Daniel 7:14 requires disciples of all nations. Ethnē (‘nations’) is the regular Greek term for Gentiles, and it has been argued that this command therefore actually excludes the Jews from the scope of the disciples’ mission. But to send the disciples to ‘the Gentiles’ is merely to extend the range of their mission, and need not imply a cessation of the mission to Israel which has already been commanded, and can now be taken for granted. Moreover, the phrase panta ta ethnē (‘all nations’) has been used previously in 24:9, 14; 25:32 in contexts which probably all include Israel in ‘the nations’. And surely there can be no suggestion in Daniel 7:14 of the exclusion of Israel from the dominion of the Son of man, who himself represents Israel. This then is the culmination of the theme we have noted throughout the Gospel, the calling of a people of God far wider than that of the Old Testament, in which membership is based not on race but on a relationship with God through his Messiah (see above, on 3:9; 8:11–12; 12:21; 21:28–32, 41–43; 22:8–10; 24:14, 31; 26:13). The description of the mission in terms of making disciples emphasizes this personal allegiance. It is sometimes argued that if Jesus had spoken so clearly, his followers could not have been so hesitant about the admission of Gentile believers as we see them in Acts, but it is worth noting (a) that Luke sees no inconsistency between an equally clear command (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8) and the later hesitations, and (b) that in fact the debates in the post-Easter church were not so much over whether Gentiles should be admitted as over the conditions of their admission (circumcision, keeping the food-laws, etc.).

Baptizing and ‘teaching’ (v. 20) are participles dependent on the main verb, make disciples; they further specify what is involved in discipleship. Baptizing has been mentioned in this Gospel only as the activity of John, though the Gospel of John makes it clear that it was a characteristic also of Jesus’ ministry at least in the early days while John was still active (John 3:22–26; 4:1–3). It was against the background of John’s practice that it would be understood, as an act of repentance and of identification with the purified and prepared people of God (see on 3:6, 9, 13). But while John’s baptism was only a preparatory one (3:11), Jesus now institutes one with a fuller meaning. It is a commitment to (in the name is literally ‘into the name’, implying entrance into an allegiance) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (all three of whom, interestingly, were involved in the event of Jesus’ own baptism, 3:16–17). Jesus thus takes his place along with his Father and the Spirit as the object of worship and of the disciple’s commitment. The experience of God in these three Persons is the essential basis of discipleship. At the same time the singular noun name (not ‘names’) underlines the unity of the three Persons.

Baptism was in fact performed in New Testament times, as far as our records go, in the name of Jesus, which is surprising if Jesus had laid down an explicit trinitarian formula before his ascension. An explanation for this may be found in the argument that these words, which later came to be used as a liturgical formula, were not originally so intended and used. They were rather ‘a description of what baptism accomplished’ (AB, pp. 362–363). Or it may be that Matthew is summarizing, in the more explicit and formal language of the church in which he wrote, the gist of what Jesus had taught about the God his disciples were to worship, teaching which had clearly associated himself and the Spirit with the Father, even if not in a set formula. It has been argued that these words were not part of the original text of Matthew, since Eusebius regularly in his pre-Nicene works quotes Matthew 28:19 in the shorter form ‘Go and make disciples of all nations in my name’, but the fact that no extant manuscript of Matthew has this reading suggests that this was rather Eusebius’ own abbreviation than a text he found in existing manuscripts.

 R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 419–421.

19. baptizing them. In the New Testament baptizein (to “baptize,” literally used for dyeing of cloth) is the verb used to describe the act of initiation into the Messianic Community. But the verb—and the derived noun “baptism”—includes considerations which are always presupposed in the New Testament. This lustration with or in water assumed (a) repentance on the part of the person being baptized, the baptism itself conveying or implying forgiveness (cf. Acts 2:38); (b) faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

There are two kinds of formal statements about baptismal status in the New Testament, one speaking of baptism “in the name of” and the other “into the name of” the Messiah. Without setting hard and definite limits, we may understand the first formula (“in the name of”) as including both the neophytes’ expressed faith in Jesus as Lord, and also the ceremonial action which accepted this profession of faith—i.e., the baptismal rite. “Into the name of,” however, seems in its various contexts to demand an interpretation which calls attention to the results of the baptismal rite. The neophyte baptized into the name of the Messiah thus not only pledges allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord, but is also incorporated into fellowship with him. Hence the expression used in this verse describes an entrance into fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Father, … Son, … Holy Spirit. If we approach this verse with a fully developed post-Nicene orthodoxy in our minds, we shall be just as unsympathetic to our sources as are those who find in this verse a highly sophisticated and much later stage of doctrinal formulation retrojected into the text. For all we know, such a saying may have stood in the now-lost ending of Mark. Even apart from such speculation, the concept of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly as old as the Messianic Community as it is known to us in the New Testament. Cf., for example, 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 3:23–24. In Mark we have “Father” and “Son” so obviously antithetical that — allowing for Jewish beliefs about “the Spirit” — it plainly opened the way to trinitarian belief. The antithesis Father-Son is found in Matt 16:27 and is very common in John. But what is also common in John is the emphasis on the Paraclete, clearly represented as being neither Father nor Son.

It seems plain from the early material in Acts that baptism was performed “in the name of” and also “into the name of” Jesus as Lord and Messiah. The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this saying as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description of what baptism accomplished. The evangelist, whom we must at least allow to have been familiar with the baptismal customs of the early Messianic Community, may well have added to baptizing them his own summary of what baptism accomplished.

It is as well to remember that the Didache also has this summary of baptism (Didache vii) and its reference to “running water” reflects an earlier Essene preoccupation.

 W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 26, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 362–363.

chap. lxi.—christian baptism.

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

 Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 183.

@Brother Rando

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:

“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”

"In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out." – Conybeare" See that? ‘in my name’, struck out.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus September 21 My Logos library includes Tyndale New Testament Commentary | TNTC (21 vols.) that does NOT have the above quote.

@Brother Rando September 21 Your Logos library doesn't contain the accurate scripture of Christ in (Mark 1:34) either. Your library only contains antichristian doctrine.

@BroRando November 30 * Remove Christ from scripture and violently persecute anyone who points it out.---Mark 1:34

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 2021 "Persecution" irony is the only CD poster being fooled by Mark 1:34 to be Christ falsehood repetition (brainwashing attempt) is @BroRando

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 2021 Koine Greek language does not use parenthesis () for punctuation. @BroRando screen shots plastered in many CD threads shows (χριστὸν εἶναι) where the parenthesis () shows these two words do not appear in many manuscripts. Westcott & Hort choose to incorporate a scribal note (χριστὸν εἶναι) (Christ to be) into Mark 1:34 text. Searching 330 English Bibles in my Logos library for Christ WITHIN {Milestone <mk1.34>} found two verses:

34 and he cured many′ that were sick with divers′ diseases, and |many demons| he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ]. 

 Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible: A Translation Designed to Set Forth the Exact Meaning, the Proper Terminology, and the Graphic Style of the Sacred Original (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2010), Mk 1:34.

34 He healed many who were afflicted with various diseases and cast out many demons. However, he did not allow the demons to speak because they knew him to be the Christ. *

* Other manuscripts omit “to be the Christ"

 Laurent Cleenewerck, ed., The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Laurent A. Cleenewerck, 2011), Mk 1:34.

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus December 2021 Both translations agree with @BroRando screen shots about phrase (χριστὸν εἶναι) NOT being in other manuscripts.

@Pages September 1 And by the way, where on JW.org is their official statement regarding Mk. 1:34 that supports the above claim you so readily proclaim here on this forum?

Christ

Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, meaning anointed one, but they attach such a narrow definition to the term that they miss much of its significance. The Watchtower declares that “Jesus could not bear the title ‘Christ’ until he was anointed by Jehovah’s spirit at the time of his baptism in 29 c.e.” (January 1, 1969, page 29) It stresses this limited application of the title “Christ” because JW leaders view Jesus Christ as an earthly manifestation of Michael the Archangel, a mere created being who was given the assignment of fulfilling the role of Christ among men on earth.

The Bible, on the other hand, presents Jesus Christ as timeless: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8) He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8)

Since the angels, of course, know the timeless Christ of the Bible rather than the limited Christ of the Watchtower, it was no problem for the angel to call him “Christ” at the time of his birth, when announcement was made to the shepherds near Bethlehem: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11 nwt)

See also our chapters “Jesus Christ” and “Michael the Archangel.”

 David A. Reed, Answering Jehovah’s Witnesses: Subject by Subject, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997).

And behold, on that same day, two of them were traveling to a village named Emmaus that was sixty stadia distant from Jerusalem, and they were conversing with one another about all these things that had happened. And it happened that while they were conversing, and discussing, Jesus himself also approached and began to go along with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him.

And he said to them, “What are these matters that you are discussing with one another as you are walking along?”

And they stood still, looking sad. And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to him, “Are you the only one living near Jerusalem and not knowing the things that have happened in it in these days?”

And he said to them, “What things?”

So they said to him, “The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, a man who was a prophet, powerful in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to a sentence of death, and crucified him. But we were hoping that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. But in addition to all these things, this is the third day since these things took place. But also some women from among us astonished us, who were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying they had seen even a vision of angels, who said that he was alive! And some of those with us went out to the tomb and found it like this, just as the women had also said, but him they did not see.”

And he said to them, “O foolish and slow in heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer these things and enter into his glory?”

And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures. And they drew near to the village where they were going, and he acted as though he was going farther.

And they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is getting toward evening, and by this time the day is far spent.”

And he went in to stay with them. And it happened that when he reclined at the table with them, he took the bread and gave thanks, and after breaking it, he gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he became invisible to them.

And they said to one another, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was speaking with us on the road, while he was explaining the scriptures to us?”

And they got up that same hour and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven and those with them assembled, saying, “The Lord has really been raised, and has appeared to Simon!” And they began describing what happened on the road, and how he was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread. 

And while they were saying these things, he himself stood there among them. But they were startled and became terrified, and thought they had seen a ghost.

And he said to them, “Why are you frightened? And for what reason do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that I am I myself! Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.”

And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they were still disbelieving because of joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Do you have anything to eat here?”

So they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in front of them. 

And he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.”

Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending out what was promised by my Father upon you, but you stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” 

@Brother Rando September 22 Christ was deleted from YOUR Mark 1:34 <~~~~~Click (no Christ)

@Brother Rando September 22 This scripture reads, "and he cured many that were sick with divers diseases, and many demons he cast out, and suffered not the demons to be talking,—because they knew him [to be Christ]. (Mark 1:34) Rotherham Bible

@Brother Rando September 22 It's in our Christian Watchtower Library and quotes are in some of our Bible Literature.

@Brother Rando September 22 Should you ever become a follower of Jesus Christ you will learn much more than this

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faith to faith, just as it is written, “But the one who is righteous by faith will live.” 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles. 

Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen. 

@Brother Rando

"The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”"

@Brother Rando

"I would actually update the quote since the Catholic teaches a different Jesus. "

@Brother Rando

@Brother Rando

When you acknowledge how the Apostles baptized new converts to Christianity in the First Century. Then I will give you the answers you seek. Otherwise, I will simply quote my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in everything; for this is the will of אלהים God for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but examine all things; hold fast to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the אלהים God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept complete, blameless at the coming of our יהוה Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, who also will do this.

@Brother Rando September 24 When you acknowledge how the Apostles baptized new converts to Christianity in the First Century. Then I will give you the answers you seek. Otherwise, I will simply quote my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

@Pages September 24 In response, the above mechanism is non-relevant to my speaking directly to you regarding the veracity of the three quotations supplied by you in this thread. All of which, have been shown to be a manipulated misquoting of the source; thereby, simply being nothing more than false statements.

@Pages September 24 The normal response by someone who knows their source material to be correct, verifiable, and true, is to point to wherein that particular source material lays the vindication of the persons use of it, and not only that; but in doing so also gives a standing to that same source material's value and accuracy regarding the issue under discussion.

@Pages September 24 So, I, and anyone else reading this exchange, have already your answer: a resounding no –  you have no knowledge as to the origination of the Catholic Encyclopedia quote, nor are you able to find support for it within the page referenced by the quote.

@Brother Rando September 25 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8:

@Brother Rando September 25 “Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”

Let the reader judge whether the facts adduced respecting Ancient Baptisteries, and Ritual Regulations and Confessions, are not confirmatory of immersion as the primary and ancient baptism, and of a change having taken place from immersion to pouring and sprinkling.

 R. Ingham, A Handbook of Christian Baptism, vol. I (London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1865), 138.

@Brother Rando September 25 — (Bible Catechism, Rev. John C Kersten, S.V.D., Catholic Book Publishing Co., N.Y., N.Y.; l973, p. 164)

@Brother Rando September 25 A History of The Christian Church:

@Brother Rando September 25 1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”

SECTION XIII. BAPTISM

Baptism is older than Christianity. The rite gave to John, the “Forerunner,” his name. He baptized Jesus. His disciples and those of Jesus baptized, though Jesus Himself did not. The origin of the rite is uncertain; but it was probably a spiritualization of the old Levitical washings. Jewish teaching, traceable probably to a period as early as the time of Christ, required proselytes to the Hebrew faith not merely to be circumcised, but to be baptized. It seems probable that John did not invent the rite, and simply used contemporary practice. It was a fitting symbol of the spiritual purification that followed the repentance that he preached. The mystery religions had equivalent rites (ante, p. 10); but so purely Jewish was that primitive Christianity to which baptism belongs, that it is inconceivable that they should have had any effect on the origin of the practice, though they were profoundly to influence its development on Gentile soil. Peter represents baptism as the rite of admission to the church, and to the reception of the Holy Spirit. As the sacrament of admission baptism always stood till the religious divisions of post-Reformation days. It so stands for the vast majority of Christians at present.

With Paul, baptism was not merely the symbol of cleansing from sin, it involved a new relation to Christ, and a participation in His death and resurrection. Though Paul apparently did not think baptism essential to salvation his view approached that of the initiations of the mystery religions and his converts in Corinth, at least, held an almost magical conception of the rite, being baptized in behalf of their dead friends, that the departed might be benefited thereby. Baptism soon came to be regarded as indispensable. The writer of the fourth Gospel represented Christ as declaring: “Verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” The appendix to Mark pictured the risen Christ as saying: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” This conviction but deepened. To Hermas (115–140), baptism was the very foundation of the church, which “is builded upon waters.” Even to the philosophical Justin (153) baptism effected “regeneration” and “illumination.” In Tertullian’s estimate it conveyed eternal life itself.

By the time of Hermas and of Justin the view was general that baptism washed away all previous sins. As in the mystery religions it had become the great rite of purification, initiation, and rebirth into the eternal life. Hence it could be received but once. The only substitute was martyrdom, “which stands in lieu of the fontal bathing, when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.” With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matt. 28:19. That text is early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching, and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254–257).

Regarding persons baptized, the strong probability is that, till past the middle of the second century, they were those only of years of discretion. The first mention of infant baptism, and an obscure one, was about 185, by Irenæus. Tertullian spoke distinctly of the practice, but discouraged it as so serious a step that delay of baptism was desirable till character was formed. Hence he doubted its wisdom for the unmarried. Less earnest men than Tertullian felt that it was unwise to use so great an agency of pardon till one’s record of sins was practically made up. A conspicuous instance, by no means solitary, was the Emperor Constantine, who postponed his baptism till his death-bed. To Origen infant baptism was an apostolic custom. Cyprian favored its earliest possible reception. Why infant baptism arose there is no certain evidence. Cyprian, in the letter just cited, argued in its favor from the doctrine of original sin. Yet the older general opinion seems to have held to the innocency of childhood. More probable explanations are the feeling that outside the church there is no salvation, and the words attributed to Christ in John 3:5. Christian parents would not have their children fail of entering the Kingdom of God. Infant baptism did not, however, become universal till the sixth century, largely through the feeling already noted in Tertullian, that so cleansing a sacrament should not be lightly used.

As to the method of baptism, it is probable that the original form was by immersion, complete or partial. That is implied in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12. Pictures in the catacombs would seem to indicate that the submersion was not always complete. The fullest early evidence is that of the Teaching: “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living [running] water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water upon the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Affusion was, therefore, a recognized form of baptism. Cyprian cordially upheld it. Immersion continued the prevailing practice till the late Middle Ages in the West; in the East it so remains. The Teaching and Justin show that fasting and an expression of belief, together with an agreement to live the Christian life were necessary prerequisites. By the time of Tertullian an elaborate ritual had developed. The ceremony began with the formal renunciation by the candidate of the devil and all his works. Then followed the threefold immersion. On coming from the fount the newly baptized tasted a mixture of milk and honey, in symbolism of his condition as a new-born babe in Christ. To that succeeded anointing with oil and the laying on of the hands of the baptizer in token of the reception of the Holy Spirit. Baptism and what was later known as confirmation were thus combined. Tertullian also shows the earliest now known existence of Christian sponsors, i. e., god-parents. The same customs of fasting and sponsors characterized the worship of Isis.

In the apostolic age baptism was administered doubtless not only by Apostles and other leaders, but widely by those charismatically eminent in the church. By 110–117 Ignatius, in the interest of unity, was urging, “it is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast.” In Tertullian’s time, “of giving it, the chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right; in the next place the presbyters and deacons … besides these even laymen have the right, for what is equally received can be equally given.” In the Greek and Roman Churches baptism still continues the only sacrament which any Christian, or indeed any seriously intending person, can administer in case of necessity.

The middle of the third century saw a heated discussion over the validity of heretical baptism. Tertullian had regarded it as worthless; and his was undoubtedly the prevalent opinion of his time. After the Novatian schism (see p. 102) Bishop Stephen of Rome (254–257) advanced the claim that baptism, even by heretics, was effectual if done in proper form. His motives seem to have been partly the growing feeling that sacraments are of value in themselves, irrespective of the character of the administrant, and partly a desire to facilitate the return of the followers of Novatian. This interpretation was energetically resisted by Cyprian of Carthage, and Firmilian of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and led to certain important assertions of the authority of the Roman bishop. The deaths of Stephen and Cyprian gave a pause to the dispute; but the Roman view grew into general acceptance in the West. The East reached no such unanimity of judgment.

 Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 93–97.

@Brother Rando September 25 On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles' Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the “Great Commission of Jesus Christ.” Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?

SECTION IV. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

...

While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 — the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles’ Creed. What antecedents in Asia Minor, if any, it may have had is still a question in scholarly dispute. Without symbolic authority in the Orient, all the Western churches received this creed from Rome, and it was regarded, by the time of Tertullian at least, as having apostolic authority, that is as a summary of apostolic teaching. In its original form it read:

“I believe in God the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day He rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, being seated at the right hand of the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, holy church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the flesh.”

...

 Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 59–63.

πορευθεντες μαθητευσατε πα(ν)τα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους · εις το ονομα του πρ̅ς και του ϋϊου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅ ˙

 International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), Codex Sinaiticus: Septuagint and New Testament (Cambridge, UK: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012), Mt 28:19.

[The leaf of S which contained Matt 28:7–Mk 1:12 is missing.]

 F. Crawford Burkitt, ed., Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence: Translation, vol. I (Cambridge, at the University Press, 1904), Mt 28:7.

@Brother Rando September 25 This Apocrypha satire ...

@Brother Rando * Note:  Apocrypha was later applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church. In general use, the word apocrypha has come to mean "false, spurious, bad, or heretical".

Apocrypha was also applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church.

In general use, the word apocrypha came to mean "of doubtful authenticity".[13] 

Martin Luther did not class apocryphal books as being scripture, but in the German Luther Bible (1534) the apocrypha are published in a separate section from the other books, although the Lutheran and Anglican lists are different.