What if I was baptized in (The Titles)Father, Son, Holy Ghost is that Incorrect?

[Della Morton]

There's Bad News If you were!! because no one in the entire Testament Church Was ever baptized that Way! Let us examine the new Testament Water baptisms and Find The right Way to be baptized! The Good News Is Your here and Hopefully Have a desire to Follow the Bible.


There has been some beliefs state salvation is accepting Jesus as your personal savior. By acknowledging he is the son of God that your saved. Then they teach and baptize in the titles Father Son and Holy Spirit.

But what does the Bible say?

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

You Must believe to come to salvation. But believing is not salvation.

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Why did he ask them How they were baptized? Does it matter how your baptized?

YES


Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

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

So they first were taught.

Secondly they believed

Then was baptized

Next you will see they was filled with the Holy Ghost and the evident of the Holy Ghost came By that God given tongue that God gives to each he fills with his spirit.

Now we see prior to this they had repented but didn’t know the truth about really being saved. But once they seen the truth they willingly received God.

Act 2:37

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Act 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


Mat 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Now What did peter who God said upon who he was going to build his church on and who was given the keys too say?


Repent, Be baptized and How did he say to be baptized? In the titles Father Son and Holy Spirit?

NO.

He said IN THE NAME OF. NAME NOT NAMES OR TITLES. SINGULAR ONE NAME.

And he gave us what that one name to our one God is. JESUS.

Find in the word where there was ever anyone baptized in the titles father son, holy spirit.

It is not in there. You will never find in Gods word where any one was baptized the 3 titles. NAME OF Means one name singular.

There is one verse in the book of Matthew 28:19 and when you read this verse understand that anytime Jesus tried to make the people understand who he really was they wanted to stone him. His mission wasn’t to prove he was God just yet. His mission was to bring us to him by coming in a fleshly form. Every time they would question who he was he would talk to them in riddles or in a way they wasn’t sure just what he was saying for sure. Even still they wanted to stone him. He slipped away through the crowd many times. So when he spoke of Matt 28:19 he was using wisdom talking of a shadow of what was to come. If he has said go out teaching men to baptize in my name they would have stoned him. Most of the things he spoke did not even come to them or fully understand until he died on the cross then more when he rose again like he said he would do. Then on the day of Pentecost wow. What he said about coming back and living in me was true. For the first time in their lives they saw Christ for who he really was. Ok here is that verse Christ spoke while still walking in a flesh form with them.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

He didn’t give the name of yet they would soon find what that name was to be.
He does give us a Clue that there is one Name for remission of sins by preaching the gospel.
Luke 24:46-47 (King James Version)

46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Act 2:41

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Now those three thousand didn’t just say that they believe that God sent Jesus and that they accept him only. They Repented and were baptized in JESUS NAME and was filled with his spirit (with the evidence by speaking in tongues)

Act 2:42

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Somewhere along the way a large percentage of the church world has left the apostles doctrine. Are we to still follow the doctrine that God set up through the apostles?


Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Eph 4:4

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Eph 4:5

One Lord, one faith, one Baptism,

Eph 4:6

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Living a good life will not save you. the word tells us that if you haven’t been born of the water and the spirit which is to repent and receive the Holy Ghost and Baptism that you will not make it to heaven.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Oh come on I was baptized and believe besides I don’t have to give up as much going to the church I am at now. Whats the big deal? They love God too. What God isn’t gonna let them in just because they didn’t speak in all that tongue stuff or get baptized in Jesus name.

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.



Joh 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.



Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

See what did I tell you earlier? He was trying to let them see hey guys I came from heaven robed in this skin because I love you. But they couldn’t see that. Do you really think they would have accepted him saying Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Like was said in acts 2:38?

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Joh 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

Below is some of the scriptures from the word of God on baptism.

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


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

Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

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

Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

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

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

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

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Acts 8:34-39 (King James Version)

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He Is The Only Way We Can be Saved.
Don't You Want to Be Baptized the Right Way Today?
Please drop me a line on my page . Love In Christ Della Morton

Here is a Bible Study video on Why Is Water baptism Of The Father,Son, Holy Spirit Incorrect?
FIND OUT "WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?" A must see video.

[Della Morton]

The Catholics claim they are the true church! but as we can see the bible is where the true church is!

[Della Morton]

This video gives scholarly proof that the text of Matthew 28:19 was a later insertion [after 200 AD] by the Catholic church. It provides key eye-witness account of the original reading of the text through early writings of major Christian figures and one who had access to an original copy of Matthew. All sources are listed within the video and there are absolutely countless others that 10 minutes worth of video could not contain. I encourage you to research this on your own. The evidence is so absolutely overwhelming that this text has been corrupted [including admission from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict 16th] that it is undeniable.

[Reverend Darryl Cunningham]

I so agree i feel that there are many denominations that promote which ways you should be baptized and which words should be used to baptized you i believe in the trinitarian way because this is what i was taught and not only that this is what i was taught through the scripture where he says how can you come unto me except you come unto my father... so i find that we must be baptized in the trinity and that is just my plain but wonderful belief

[Della Morton]

Minister Cunningham: All the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus. Col.2:9
Haven't you've been reading any of my posts? The trinity is a man -made doctrine and so is the baptism of Matthew 28:19 your believing in. The catholic church came out with this doctrine of the trinity in 325A.D at the Council of Nicaea! This was hundreds of years after the true teachings of Jesus and His apostles in the bible. (see chart above) Please look in to this don't take just my word for this. You are a minister of God and will be held accountable before God. Please take what I am about to say in careful Consideration!

In the book "The Trinity" by Woodrow Whidden, Ph. D., Jerry Moon, Ph. D., and John W. Reese (pursuing a Ph. D) published by Review and Herald in 2002 (which I had for almost two years now when I purchased it in April of 2002 during the Laity Convention in Orlando, FL), they wrote in the first chapter titled "The Strongest Biblical Evidence For The Trinity", p32.:

"Probably the strongest clues to such a divine triunity occur in the famous gospel commission that Jesus gave the church in its baptismal formula: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)."

Let the reader decide for themselves based on the evidence presented here whether the current rendition of Matthew 28:19 is really the infallible word of God or is a man-made addition to the infallible word of God. We are all in agreement that all [authentic] scripture is infallible.

May God be glorified and may the reader submit to the authority of the authentic scriptures alone, forsaking human teachings and traditions of men,

alway

*******
Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!

What Did Matthew Actually Write, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," OR "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME"?

This article is based on a publication which was originally written in 1961 and titled " A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19 ". The author was a minister, presumably Protestant. He signed his work simply as A. Ploughman. He lived in Birmingham, England. The author had not encountered anything dealing with the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, during his 50 years of Biblical study except from out of print articles, books and encyclopaedias. I would have never considered reviewing this information except for the fact that a trusted friend was quite zealous about the importance of the conclusions reached. In this article, only the secular historical quotations have been retained as written from Ploughman's research.

Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of determining how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of our God, remembering that His truth, and not our traditions, is eternal.

The information presented is extremely relevant to our faith. The amount of information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth effort. I hope that you will allow the facts contained in this article to stir you into action. If you discover that you have not been baptized into the name of the true God, and have knowingly accepted a substitute, how would God respond?

However, it must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even the third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the "early church fathers" wanted it to become.)

No single early manuscript is free from textual error. Some have unique errors; other manuscripts were copied extensively and have the same errors. Again, our aim is to examine all of the evidence and determine as closely as possible what the original words were.

Considering the fact that all of the scriptures from Genesis thru Malachi make no reference to a Trinitarian God, and that from Mark thru Revelation we also find no evidence for a Trinity, we must consider the possibility that all the existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common.

According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory:

The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.

More on these changes will be addressed later. Another writer said:

A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text which they contain. By proving how honest a text is rather than strictly how old it is provides us with a text which has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text is older than the fourth century, that it was current in the third or better still the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered. We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. What we wish to ascertain, however, is not merely an ancient text but an accurate text.

Of course, "the grossest errors," that this writer is referring to are not doctrinal errors, but the errors in the text itself. Not surprisingly tho, some of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were being introduced in the early church. This historic falling away will be addressed later.

Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of Matthew, also contain the Triune name. But, of course, there is more to be considered than what is present in a document. One must also take into consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: "In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form. ..though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point."

F.C. Conybeare further elaborated:

In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew.

So then, though all early Versions contain the traditional Triune name in Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions do not contain the verse at all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can not be certain of the motives why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our study we are now compelled to consult the early historical writings

Excerpts of Early Catholic Writers

Before we make references concerning these early writers, it should be emphatically stated, that if the question under consideration were one of doctrine, the written records of these Catholic writers would be totally irrelevant. Doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and not from Catholics, Jews or other sources. These self proclaimed "fathers" lived in an age of unrestrained heresy. Their testimony is valuable only because they provide an incidental and independent verification of scriptural texts much older than our current complete copies.

In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic [L. pater:"father"] evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the 'Three Witnesses'. - F.C. Conybeare in the Hibbert Journal

Could this bold statement be true? While not a single manuscript from the first three centuries remains in existence, we do have "eye witness" observations of at least two men who actually had access to manuscripts dating much earlier than our earliest. Others also quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works have been preserved, dating to much earlier times than our best manuscript copies. We are about to examine who these men were and what the circumstances were. We will attempt to determine if these are reliable quotations of the original scriptures. How did they quote Matthew 28:19? Did their comments imply an existing controversy surrounding the use of the scriptures being quoted? Was a Trinity implied? These are questions that can be answered.

In the pages ahead, we will consider evidence from the following men, either via quotations from their writings, or as commented upon thru the writings of their contemporaries:1) Eusebius of Caesurae, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate, 3) Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7) Eunomius and 8) Aphraates.

Our search through their writings is not to establish any doctrine, but to find early witnesses to the verse in question.

Eusebius of Caesurae

Our first witness will be Eusebius of Caesurae, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 A.D., and died around 340 A.D. He lived in times of rampant doctrinal change, was a Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the formation of the Nicene Creed. Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19, Eusebius is our key witness. Therefore, to establish his veracity as a credible witness, let us consider the following quotes:"Eusebius of Caesurae, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which would have perished had he not collected and edited them." Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10

Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time. .. worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. .. Eusebius. .. relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony. E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote.

Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning. Chapter 2, 9. .. Till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and devout man of Caesurae, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. Dr. Wescott, in "General Survey," page 108

Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. Peake Bible Commentary, page 596

The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesurae. .. Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if some-what confused, and at times not a little prejudiced, erudition. Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature

Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known. .. The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation. .. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins. .. in general terms, without entering into details. .. but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Mosheim, again in an editorial note.

Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded. Mosheim

Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about 300-340 A.D., none is so important as Eusebius of Caesurae, for he lived in the greatest Christian Library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesurae derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his Library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries. F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902.

Considering the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the "New Testament" text, let us now move on to the his evidence concerning Matthew 28.

The Evidence of Eusebius

According to Ludwig Knupfer, the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius, among his many other writings compiled a file of corrupted variations of the Holy Scriptures, and:

The most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.

His source material has been lost, as he later wrote:

through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine.

But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.

According to Conybeare:

Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany. .. in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. '

Ploughman's research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording "in my name". Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following:

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". For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, "God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. " It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.' (col. 240, p. 136)

MORE INTERESTING FACTS:

Todays Pope Benedict, when he was a cardinal in 1988, actually admitted the Catholic church changed the baptism:

-- The basic form of the (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."
Quoted from: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, pp.50-51.


The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:

As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."
Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:

"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 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."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:

"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

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."
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:

"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:

"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:

"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:

"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
James Moffett's New Testament Translation:

In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur:

Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:

Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."
Theology of the New Testament:

By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."

How Much more evidence do you need? The Trinity is Man-made.
Will you choose to follow the teachings of traditions of Men or will you follow Christ and His apostles teaching?

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

1) Posting long posts do not get people's attention, nor does it make you correct. It just says that you either don't know how to make a strong point in a more shorter, considerate-to-the-reader manner, or you only know how to "cut-n-paste", but have little revelation of your own.


2) Its a shame that you would use Eusebius and other writings so much within your references, but when I refer to the Apostolic Fathers its heresy. Why? Simply because when I refer to an Apostolic Father, it is either Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, or Polycarp of Smyrna, all three who received their training and ordination to the office of Bishop directly from the hands of Apostle John and Apostle Peter. So now that would bring in direct conflict with the disciples of the authors of the NT scriptures. A tough challenge......

How much more evidence do you need, Ms. Morton? Will you choose to follow the teachings of traditions of men (Sabellius the excommunicated Gnostic heretic) or will you follow Christ and His Apostles teaching?

[Della Morton]

3 Common Sense Reasons Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine
Here is a short, straightforward argument that exposes the doctrine of the Trinity as a man-made apostasy. Three common sense reasons that cannot be disputed.
#1. No Authority at Nicea -
First, lets set this up with a brief history lesson. The Trinity was cautified nearly 300 years after Christ and the original Apostles had been killed off. Christians had been persecuted and had gone underground for much of this period to avoid being fed to lions--remember that?

Under that setting, the Nicean Council and the formation of the Trinity doctrine was ordered and approved by the Roman Emperor Constantine as part of his political campaign to unite factions of the failing Roman Empire under one state religion. Not a lot of people dispute this fact, but Trinity believers try and "spiritualize" it by makingConstantine into a holy man who was led by God. Yet, there is evidence that he was never even baptized--which Christ said was necessary to be saved. (See John 3:5)

Think about it. A somewhat analogous equivalent today would be if the President of the United States gathered up all the Christian denominations of the day, had them mash-up their differing beliefs, and made a church from the consensus--a single religion for the the whole country. And it would all be lead and approved by, not a religious leader, but a political leader.

There weren't even any of the Christian leaders or attendants that claimed to be the head authorities of the church. They all pretty much laid down any authority to the Emperor. And just like in politics, the beliefs of the majority were adopted. Of the two factions that had a disagreement about the character and nature of God and Christ, the majority opinion won the debate, and the losing belief was denounced as heresy. Ask yourself when, if ever, difficult religious doctrines are approved by the majority? Do you think we'd have 10 commandments if it was put up for a vote? I doubt it.

#2. The Unknowable God -
The Trinity Doctrine is impossible to understand, yet understanding our relationship to God is central in gaining salvation and understanding many other gospeldoctrines. In fact the Bible tells us that our very eternal life depends on knowing HIM.

John 17: 3 - And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Bottom line, the 3-in-one monster conjured up by the Trinity is an unknowable being. The Trinity is confusion, and that is NOT of God, but of the devil.(See 1 Cor. 14: 33)

Honest theologians and priests will even admit that there is no way to "understand" the Trinity. They will argue that the mortal mind cannot grasp it but only "comprehend" some of it, but even that is a stretch when the scripture states that our very eternal life depends on KNOWING Him.

I also believe that if there was one doctrine that we should fully understand, it SHOULD be the one about the character and nature of God, and that he'd be a mean son of a gun to give us no way of understanding this very basic and important aspect of the gospel.

If you know anything about the history of the Nicean council, you also know that the framers of this gibberish themselves actually knew that what they were outlining was incomprehensible. That leads you to another problematic question... If the theologian/writers of the Trinity KNEW it was beyond the understanding of men. Then, as MEN, how do they know that they got it right in the first place?

That leads us to the final part of the argument. The lack of spiritual evidence that this doctrine is accepted by God...

#3. Lack of ANY Spiritual Confirmation or Manifestation -
As I have argued, this is a key doctrine that is pivotal to understand which touches most if not all other gospel principals anddoctrines, yet there is no evidence of spiritual manifestations, or any kind of confirmation by the spirit for the conclusion of Nicea.

Again, anyone who takes time to read and study the history of the Nicean Creed will be struck by the strictly political atmosphere of the whole event--thats it.

If you take your examples from the Bible you will notice that most all of the major events in scripture were attended by angels, had manifestations of the Holy Spirit, or miraculous happenings of some sort or another. Yet at Nicea, none of the attendants reported angels appearing, cloven tongues of fire, or even a simple voice from heaven. Everything went off like a session of congress with everybody trying to please theRoman Emperor.

If this IS a pivotal doctrine, why wouldn't there be SOME record of a miraculous occurance that could be pointed to as acceptance by God?

So there you have it. I think these common sense reasons are valid and very strong against the Trinity being a true doctrine. I believe that most Christian Churches of the day have accepted it simply because it is a tradition.

[Reverend Darryl Cunningham]

Well i have come to find that there are many different beliefs many different things that we support so i have no problem that don't agree with the trinity but i just want to say in order for us to go to higher heights and be elevated by God we have to belief in his word and so many have twisted it and so many have changed it from it's original state to mean this and to mean that but hey i'm a big supporter of the 3 Father Son and Holy Spirit because after we are baptized we recieve the spirit so to end i would just say as you said sister della we will all be accounted for what we say so i find that if we just serve God and stop focusing on this type of stuff this is what tares the churches down this doctrine here and there he say she say but the bible says: Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10) and as peter records in the bible let every person be persuaded by their own mind cept they shall lose their own soul!

[Della Morton]

Minister Cunningham In order to go higher heights we first must fall on our faces and seek the lord! These posts that I have posted are not meant to tare down what you believe if it is to strip away traditions of man and to follow after Jesus and His apostles . WHOM THE SON SETS FREE IS FREE INDEED!!

Matthew 7:14 (King James Version)

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[Reverend Darryl Cunningham]

Sister Morton,

I agree in order to go to higher heights we must seek the lord diligently and we must call upon his name and i in no way shape or form feel that you are taring down my belief you are just opening it up too a wider horizon and this is what i love to see and hear new things because if we are creature in christ then our spirits must connect and as you said you are free when God sets you free and when your are baptized all sins are washed away and you become what... a new creature in Christ. There are few that can't find the way towards this gate but we must help them along the way we must continue to help build them up and not tare them down i thank God for every moment that i am able to walk with him after being a baptized believer i can truly say that no matter what is said i serve a God that sits high and looks low. What we have to learn to do is seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all his righteousness and then all things will be added unto you.

[Della Morton]

I also thank the Lord for showing me his precious truth and for being baptized in his Name! Also being filled with His spirit! His grace and mercy is amazing!
I love the precious word of God today and I do believe it should not be mistreated just because I have posted the truth on here some think it's a game to use the word of God and twist it to their own destruction. The whole point of this blog is for sincere people that love the Lord Today and want to grow in his Word, Not for debate. If the person is sincere I will gladly answer their questions. I spend much time in prayer and doing research to help people come to the Truth. Let's face it Salvation is important it's not something to be disregarded.

Trevor I am done showing you the precious Word of God and you continue to TRAMPLE IT UNDER FOOT.

IF YOUR LOOKING FOR A DEBATE WHY DON"T YOU START YOUR OWN BLOG! THIS BLOG IS ABOUT WATER BAPTISM IN THE ONE AND ONLY SAVING NAME. ACTS 4:12 JESUS CAN SET YOU FREE TREVOR

[Della Morton]

Acts 4:12 (King James Version)

12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
At the Name Jesus we are identified with his death in water baptism.
Romans 6:4 (King James Version)

4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

[Reverend Darryl Cunningham]

This is for the post above i love the word myself and i feel what would make us a more better people is by praying and coming together and serving God but we all have to be on one accord and one foundation and that is Jesus Christ he does not have 1000 foundations he has one foundation and we need to stand and cling to that rock that he has laid up for us and let us as the bible says "NOW IS THE TIME WHEN MEN SHALL WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH". What time is it worshipping time! Who are we worshipping God! TO GOD BE ALL THE GLORY.