by SharonUT 22 Replies latest watchtower bible
If this has been answered before, just point me in the right direction.
Matthew 28:19 says to be baptized in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." What is the justification used in Jehovah's Witnesses changing this. Is there scriptural reasoning? Thanks.
NO ONE should change the word of the King.
He is calling on all the be baptised in the name of the TRINITY, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost.
Yes, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost... but I don't equate that with the "trinity." Still, I was wondering the JW view on this?
SharonUT,
JW elders will tell you "in the back room" when you are going over the questions for baptism ..... that you are being baptized in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the holy spirit.
But when you make a 'public announcement' before ALL onlookers, you are baptized by 2 things.
1. Repentance of your sins based on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
2. "Do YOU realize that your baptism IDENTIFIES you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and in association with his spirit directed organization?"
Yes.... do you REALIZE that?
Which means if for any reason you are no longer "in association with the spirit directed organization" or if you no longer want to be known as Jehovah's Witness ........ then they LEGALLY can expel you from the organization.
Your 'baptism' is the "signed contract."
Pretty deceptive slick organization,
Aaron
What a complex mess the JW organization is with their twisted views. They will answer for their false prophecies and deceptions.
But I agree with Aaron. Just because there are three entities one is baptized in recognition of does not mean the three entities are one entity rolled up into one, namely the trinity.
In fact, the "666" number on the beast which represents Christendom represents it's false belief in the trinity doctrine which is yet another indication it is a false doctrine, but a MAJOR false doctrine and primary doctrine of Christendom.
Though this is not the believe of Jehovah's Witnesses and it's leaders, this organization still becomes apostate and is represented by the "Lamb Dragon" beast who is also called a "false prophet" in Revelation. The Lamb-Dragon Beast, however, does not specifically bear the number representing the false trinity doctrine which is "666".
Note, one beast comes out of the "sea" representing Christendom and all it's demonations, but the Lamb-Dragon beast comes out of the "earth" representing the "temple" organization which is in association with recognized "spiritual Israel" which would be connected with the Witness organization. The Witness organization is the temple organization even though it becomes apostate, just like the Jews were God's chosen people but became apostate, etc.
It's nice to see some reall Biblical topics being discussed though. Thanks for posting this information. I know beliefs will always vary..that's part of the territory.
LG
The Fathr, Son and Holy Ghost DOES equal the trinity for you are not being baptised into the name of THREE gods, but three-as-one.
And as for 666 as someone mentioned, that is actually the ANTI-trinity, the Devil, the Beast, and the False prophet.
G-d_knows: Bullshit
It is believed by some that this scripture was altered, probably during the third century to support the development of the doctrine of the trinity.
Since the concession that 1 John 5:7 is spurious, only Matthew 28:19 remains as a scriptural support for the triune name. That is why the triple formula, "father, son and holy spirit:' formed the framework of the Apostles' Creed.
Oxford scholar Moberly (1902) claimed Matthew 28:19 to be a "solemn precept to baptize in the name of the holy Trinity, which fell from the divine lips of the newly risen Lord"
Because this scripture is important to the trinitarian belief, there has been little interest in pursuing its authenticity. Yet some scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries believe the scripture was altered. James Martineau, in Seat of Authority, says that the "very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor."
In History of Dogma, Adolph Harnack claims Matthew 28:19 is "no word of the Lord" Even the cautious critic Canon Armitage Robinson, in Encyclopedia Biblica, says that Matthew "does not here report the (very words) of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language of the church of the Evangelist's own time and locality."
There are early church writers who also seem to support these views.
Eusebius, a fourth century writer, had the greatest library of any early church scribe. It contained manuscripts of the new testament that were at least 200 years older than any existing today.
Manuscripts copied by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others not available today gave him access to almost original material. Eusebius cites Matthew 28:19 eighteen times in his work, always in the same form: "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you"
When he comments on the verse, Eusebius places great stress on the phrase,"in my name." Apparently his sources, Origen, Clement and Justin Martyr,excluded "father" and "holy spirit" from this scripture.
Justin Martyr wrote between 130 A.D. and 140 A.D. While much of his work is no longer available, there is a passage that is generally thought to be a reference to Matthew 28:19: "God hath not yet inflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today ARE BEING MADE DISCIPLES IN THE NAME OF HIS CHRIST, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illumined by the name of this Christ."
Aphraates, a Syriac writer of the middle-fourth century, cites the text in yet a different manner, "Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me."
It probably was not until the middle of the third century that the current rendering of Matthew 28:19 appeared when Bishop Cyprian of Rome insisted on the triple formula for baptism. Ironically, Pope Stephen used only one name, Jesus.
During the fourth century, the orthodox church used the phrase, "in the name of the father, son and holy ghost" as a battle cry against the Macedonians who claimed that no new testament text supported the spirit as part of the trinity. However, by the seventh century the church had wholeheartedly accepted the current rendering of the scripture, and excommunicated the Celtic
In 1902, the modern scholar F.C. Conybeare summed up the history of the development of Matthew 28:19 as follows: "It is worth considering, however, whether the original text of the gospel did not end at the word 'nations,' and whether the three rival endings of the text were not developed independently, viz:
(i) 'in my name' in Justin, Eusebius, and perhaps Stephen of Rome and the Pneumato-machi
(ii) 'and they shall believe in me, in Aphraates, representing the older Syriac version
(iii) 'baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost; or similar in the Greek gnostic Theodotus, Ter-tullian Latin version of Irenaeus, and the surviving Greek MSS."
There are four instances of baptism by the Apostles recorded in the book of Acts. In each instance, only the name of Jesus is used in connection with the baptism.
Acts 2:38. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost was followed by a call to those who would become followers of Jesus: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (NIV)
Acts 8:16. Philip preached throughout Samaria and gained several converts. However, when Peter and John arrived, those converts had not received the gifts of the spirit that normally accompanied conversion in those days. They then laid their hands upon them, "because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS" (NIV)
Acts 10:48. Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, was baptized after a
lengthy conversation with Peter: "So he ordered that they be baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST." (NIV)
Acts 19:5. Paul's initial encounter with the brethren at Ephesus caused him concern as they had been baptized by Apollos with John's baptism. He instructed them regarding Jesus: "On hearing this, they were baptized INTO THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS" (NIV)
Interesting conversation. When a person says "Do this in my name" they mean, "I give you the authority" So even if that passage did have "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", Jesus meant that they were to baptise in the *authority* of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus did not mean that they were all "one" individual to support a trinity doctrine, etc. What he was referring to was not to one particular "literal surname" but was saying that the disciple making work would have the support of God, Son and the Holy Spirit because they are given the authority to do this kind of work. ( not only by Jesus, but by God and the Power of God's Holy Spirit)
Lovingkindness
Thanks for all information and opinions. I've never run across anything to indicate Matthew 28:19 was altered. Shouldn't we accept the sciprture unless it is proven dubious such as 1 John 5:7? I think this is a very slippery slope. What are the exact words used in a JW baptism nowdays? Also, I do not have a NWT... so would somebody be kind enough to quote Matthew 28:19 from their NWT for me to read.
