Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh the irony. When I tell you what the original scripture says, you falsely accused me of using some blog. When I link to a "very trusted Christian organization" quoting that scripture, you ignore that scripture and post a link to a biased 21st century blog.
You then witter on about scripture while ignoring the earliest scripture.
'(132) With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]]'
No mention of the Trinity. As I said. Eusebius, writing sometime in the first quarter of the 4th century using Origens library, which would have included gospels written in the 2nd century AD.
I'm not the one with contempt for what the earliest Christians actually said.
But thank you for demonstrating the fault with fundamentalism, that people have to make SumTing up to defend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I'd rather go with what the earliest Christians said than some 21st century blog.
Although you are replying to another user, I am going to address this.
Let's see what the earliest Christians did say concerning Matthew 28:19 which reads;
''Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
1.) The Didache, which is dated by most scholars to the first century AD.
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. [Bolding mine]
The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkeɪ/ or /ˈdɪdəkiː/; Greek: Διδαχή, translit. Didakhé, lit. 'Teaching'),[1] also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century.[2] [Bolding mine]
[2] Cross, edited by F.L. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 482. ISBN 978-0192802903. Retrieved 8 March 2016.
Udo Schnelle makes the following remark about the Didache (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 355): "The Didache means by 'the gospel' (8.2; 11.3; 15.3, 4) the Gospel of Matthew; thus the Didache, which originated about 110 CE, documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel." [Bolding mine]
2.) But let's assume that you don't accept the early dating of the Didache. Let's see what Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 - c. AD 165) said in his First Apology.
First Apology
CHAPTER LXI -- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
''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.'' [Bolding mine]
3.) Then there is Irenaeus (c. AD 130-c. AD 202) who says in Against Heresies, book III, chapter XVII (17);
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Bolding mine]
So then, we have three references from the 1st (according to most scholars with reference to the Didache) and 2nd centuries which allude to Matthew 28:19's reference to baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now with regard to Matthew 28:19 being a baptismal formula, Dr. D. A. Carson points out;
3. The term ''formula'' is tripping us up. There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here and still less that the church regarded Jesus' command as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a breach of canon law. The problem has too often been cast in anachronistic terms. E. Riggenbach (Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl Matt. 28:19 [Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1901]) points out that as late as the Didache, baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the name of the Trinity coexist side by side; the church was not bound by precise ''formulas'' and felt no embarrassment at a multiplicity of them, precisely because Jesus' instruction, which may not have been in these precise words, was not regarded as a binding formula.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8, p.598
And as for Eusebius regarding Matthew 28:19, here is what he said in his Letter to the Church in Caesarea.
Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese.
(4.) “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, Only-begotten Son, first-born of every creature, begotten from the Father before all the ages, 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 living and the dead. And we believe also in one Holy Spirit. (5.) We believe each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit, as also our Lord said when he sent forth his disciples to preach, “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [Bolding mine]
“Eusebius of Caesarea - Letter to his Church about the Creed of Nicaea
“According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is this: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ [Bolding mine]
So Eusebius did know of and agree with the Trinitarian, ''Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-08-2018 at 05:38 PM..
1.) The Didache, which is dated by most scholars to the first century AD.
You're misrepresenting the dating. Most scholars note it is a composite document who's origin was in probably in the first century AD, but was added to in the second century AD, if not later. So it is useless for dating the passage in Matthew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
2.) But let's assume that you don't accept the early dating of the Didache. Let's see what Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 - c. AD 165) said in his First Apology.
First Apology
CHAPTER LXI -- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
''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.'' [Bolding mine]
Not quoting Matthew. And considering Justin's view on the two distinct gods (the father and the spirit) given in Trypho, this is probably a reference to 3 distinct entities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
3.) Then there is Irenaeus (c. AD 130-c. AD 202) who says in Against Heresies, book III, chapter XVII (17);
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Bolding mine]
Which gets you to the late 2nd century AD. Which fits with Tertullian defending the Trinity around 200 AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
So then, we have three references from the 1st (according to most scholars with reference to the Didache) and 2nd centuries which allude to Matthew 28:19's reference to baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Three from the second century or later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
So Eusebius did know of and agree with the Trinitarian, ''Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Of course he did. That was not my argument. The point is he used a different version of Matthew elsewhere, but used the version we now have after being accused of not being a Trinitarian.
Oh the irony. When I tell you what the original scripture says, you falsely accused me of using some blog. When I link to a "very trusted Christian organization" quoting that scripture, you ignore that scripture and post a link to a biased 21st century blog.
You then witter on about scripture while ignoring the earliest scripture.
'(132) With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," [[Matt. xxviii. 19.]]'
No mention of the Trinity. As I said. Eusebius, writing sometime in the first quarter of the 4th century using Origens library, which would have included gospels written in the 2nd century AD.
I'm not the one with contempt for what the earliest Christians actually said.
But thank you for demonstrating the fault with fundamentalism, that people have to make SumTing up to defend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
I'd rather go with what the earliest Christians said than some 21st century blog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Although you are replying to another user, I am going to address this.
Let's see what the earliest Christians did say concerning Matthew 28:19 which reads;
''Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
1.) The Didache, which is dated by most scholars to the first century AD.
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. [Bolding mine]
The Didache (/ˈdɪdəkeɪ/ or /ˈdɪdəkiː/; Greek: Διδαχή, translit. Didakhé, lit. 'Teaching'),[1] also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise, dated by most modern scholars to the first century.[2] [Bolding mine]
[2] Cross, edited by F.L. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 482. ISBN 978-0192802903. Retrieved 8 March 2016.
Udo Schnelle makes the following remark about the Didache (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 355): "The Didache means by 'the gospel' (8.2; 11.3; 15.3, 4) the Gospel of Matthew; thus the Didache, which originated about 110 CE, documents the emerging authority of the one great Gospel." [Bolding mine]
2.) But let's assume that you don't accept the early dating of the Didache. Let's see what Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 - c. AD 165) said in his First Apology.
First Apology
CHAPTER LXI -- CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
''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.'' [Bolding mine]
3.) Then there is Irenaeus (c. AD 130-c. AD 202) who says in Against Heresies, book III, chapter XVII (17);
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Bolding mine]
So then, we have three references from the 1st (according to most scholars with reference to the Didache) and 2nd centuries which allude to Matthew 28:19's reference to baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now with regard to Matthew 28:19 being a baptismal formula, Dr. D. A. Carson points out;
3. The term ''formula'' is tripping us up. There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here and still less that the church regarded Jesus' command as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of which was a breach of canon law. The problem has too often been cast in anachronistic terms. E. Riggenbach (Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl Matt. 28:19 [Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1901]) points out that as late as the Didache, baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the name of the Trinity coexist side by side; the church was not bound by precise ''formulas'' and felt no embarrassment at a multiplicity of them, precisely because Jesus' instruction, which may not have been in these precise words, was not regarded as a binding formula.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8, p.598
And as for Eusebius regarding Matthew 28:19, here is what he said in his Letter to the Church in Caesarea.
Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese.
(4.) “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, Only-begotten Son, first-born of every creature, begotten from the Father before all the ages, 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 living and the dead. And we believe also in one Holy Spirit. (5.) We believe each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit, as also our Lord said when he sent forth his disciples to preach, “Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [Bolding mine]
“Eusebius of Caesarea - Letter to his Church about the Creed of Nicaea
“According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is this: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only-begotten Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ [Bolding mine]
So Eusebius did know of and agree with the Trinitarian, ''Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You're misrepresenting the dating. Most scholars note it is a composite document who's origin was in probably in the first century AD, but was added to in the second century AD, if not later. So it is useless for dating the passage in Matthew.
Not quoting Matthew. And considering Justin's view on the two distinct gods (the father and the spirit) given in Trypho, this is probably a reference to 3 distinct entities.
Which gets you to the late 2nd century AD. Which fits with Tertullian defending the Trinity around 200 AD.
Three from the second century or later.
Of course he did. That was not my argument. The point is he used a different version of Matthew elsewhere, but used the version we now have after being accused of not being a Trinitarian.
In your reply to Finn_Jarber in post #57 you said that you would rather go with what the earliest Christians said.
Post #57
''I'd rather go with what the earliest Christians said than some 21st century blog.''
In post #56 you pointed to gospels written in the 2nd century AD as being among the earliest gospels. Actually, the four gospels were all written in the first Century. But assuming that you meant that the earliest extant NT manuscript copies that we have are dated to the second century, that is correct. And yet, having been shown from sources in the second century that the church was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit you now find it inconvenient to go with what the earliest Christians said.
Now that you've been shown that church fathers in the second century made reference to baptism being done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, you ignore that fact that in the second century AD the church was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 - c. AD 165) and Irenaeus (c. AD 130-c. AD 202) ARE among the earliest of the church fathers and they prove that the church in the second century was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. As does the Didache, even if some parts of it was written after the first century. And I did say that you might be unwilling to accept the Didache.
Now, why do you think that the church in the second century was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Where do you think they got it from if the church from the very beginning wasn't performing baptism in the same manner? The earliest NT manuscripts which contain Matthew 28:19 that are extant say 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'
Nor does your argument that Eusebius (c. AD 263- 339) didn't know of any 2nd century manuscripts in which Matthew 28:19 said, ''In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'' have any validity. As already shown from church fathers during the second century, baptism was performed in that manner. There is no evidence whatsoever that what we have in Matthew 28:19 doesn't go back to the original.
In post #56 you said,
''I'm not the one with contempt for what the earliest Christians actually said.''
It appears that you DO have contempt for what the earliest Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Didache) actually said.
By the way, since in post #56 you use Origen to argue that Matthew 28:19 doesn't in the earliest manuscripts say 'in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it seems that Origen himself in his Commentary on Romans 5:8 did recognize that Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
500
''Perhaps you may inquire even into this; why then when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (3) does this Apostle employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying ''We who have been baptized in Christ (4);'' for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" ''(Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248])
"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).
In your reply to Finn_Jarber in post #57 you said that you would rather go with what the earliest Christians said.
Post #57
''I'd rather go with what the earliest Christians said than some 21st century blog.''
In post #56 you pointed to gospels written in the 2nd century AD as being among the earliest gospels. Actually, the four gospels were all written in the first Century. But assuming that you meant that the earliest extant NT manuscript copies that we have are dated to the second century, that is correct. And yet, having been shown from sources in the second century that the church was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit you now find it inconvenient to go with what the earliest Christians said.
Now that you've been shown that church fathers in the second century made reference to baptism being done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, you ignore that fact that in the second century AD the church was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 - c. AD 165) and Irenaeus (c. AD 130-c. AD 202) ARE among the earliest of the church fathers and they prove that the church in the second century was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. As does the Didache, even if some parts of it was written after the first century. And I did say that you might be unwilling to accept the Didache.
Now, why do you think that the church in the second century was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? Where do you think they got it from if the church from the very beginning wasn't performing baptism in the same manner? The earliest NT manuscripts which contain Matthew 28:19 that are extant say 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'
Nor does your argument that Eusebius (c. AD 263- 339) didn't know of any 2nd century manuscripts in which Matthew 28:19 said, ''In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'' have any validity. As already shown from church fathers during the second century, baptism was performed in that manner. There is no evidence whatsoever that what we have in Matthew 28:19 doesn't go back to the original.
In post #56 you said,
''I'm not the one with contempt for what the earliest Christians actually said.''
It appears that you DO have contempt for what the earliest Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Didache) actually said.
By the way, since in post #56 you use Origen to argue that Matthew 28:19 doesn't in the earliest manuscripts say 'in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it seems that Origen himself in his Commentary on Romans 5:8 did recognize that Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
500
''Perhaps you may inquire even into this; why then when the Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (3) does this Apostle employ the name of Christ alone in baptism, saying ''We who have been baptized in Christ (4);'' for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" ''(Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248])
"The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity" (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).
‘Jesus is Lord’ is proclaimed in the earliest of creeds. A creed may be embedded in Corinthians 15:3-7
1) Paul writes, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" According to Jewish Oral Tradition, a disciple would recite a teaching/story of their Rabbi (Jesus) by beginning with these two technical terms. 3
2) It doesn't sound like Paul - the writing style and structure of these verses differs from Paul's writings. Paul probably translated the Creed into Greek himself and included it in his epistle.
3) These verses translate smoothly back into Aramaic from the Greek; the verses written before and after do not.
4) These verses sound very Jewish and even contain Aramaic idioms, including Peter's Aramaic name, Cephas. 4
‘Jesus is Lord’ is proclaimed in the earliest of creeds. A creed may be embedded in Corinthians 15:3-7
1) Paul writes, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" According to Jewish Oral Tradition, a disciple would recite a teaching/story of their Rabbi (Jesus) by beginning with these two technical terms. 3
2) It doesn't sound like Paul - the writing style and structure of these verses differs from Paul's writings. Paul probably translated the Creed into Greek himself and included it in his epistle.
3) These verses translate smoothly back into Aramaic from the Greek; the verses written before and after do not.
4) These verses sound very Jewish and even contain Aramaic idioms, including Peter's Aramaic name, Cephas. 4
Scholars are quite certain that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a pre-pauline creed or tradition that dates to the beginning of the church-age and that Paul most likely received it from Peter and James when he went to talk with them some three years after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road (Galatians 1:18-19).
Scholar Gary Habermas commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7;
Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]
The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16).
Critical scholars generally agree that this pre-Pauline creed(s) may be the earliest in the New Testament. Ulrich Wilckens asserts that it "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity."[7] Joachim Jeremias agrees that it is, "the earliest tradition of all."[8] Perhaps a bit too optimistically, Walter Kasper even thinks that it was possibly even "in use by the end of 30 AD.
Scholars are quite certain that 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is a pre-pauline creed or tradition that dates to the beginning of the church-age and that Paul most likely received it from Peter and James when he went to talk with them some three years after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road (Galatians 1:18-19).
Scholar Gary Habermas commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7;
Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]
The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16).
Critical scholars generally agree that this pre-Pauline creed(s) may be the earliest in the New Testament. Ulrich Wilckens asserts that it "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity."[7] Joachim Jeremias agrees that it is, "the earliest tradition of all."[8] Perhaps a bit too optimistically, Walter Kasper even thinks that it was possibly even "in use by the end of 30 AD.
The evidence of God Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit is overwhelming. From prophecies of the OT to the earliest believers murdered for their faith, information for Jesus as Lord cannot merely be waived off as fiction.
After reading several denier’s postings, I think the motivation is clear. It is not evidence that makes them unbelievers but something else. I firmly believe there is sin or a dogma that they just do not want to relinquish.
In your reply to Finn_Jarber in post #57 you said that you would rather go with what the earliest Christians said.
Post #57
''I'd rather go with what the earliest Christians said than some 21st century blog.''
In post #56 you pointed to gospels written in the 2nd century AD as being among the earliest gospels.
No, I pointed to people at the end of the 2nd century AD and later talking about and quoting their scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Actually, the four gospels were all written in the first Century.
Only according to apologists. Historians date them to in a range of 80 years or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And yet, having been shown from sources in the second century that the church was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit you now find it inconvenient to go with what the earliest Christians said.
You misrepresent or misunderstand. Considering Justin Martyrs 'distinct' gods I mentioned (Trypho - Chapter LVI), I doubt very much if his baptism was a trinitarian one. But as that was not my point, it is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Now that you've been shown that church fathers in the second century made reference to baptism being done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, you ignore that fact that in the second century AD the church was baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
I'm ignoring it by agreeing Irenaeus could be the earliest reference (presuming it wasn't added at a later date as a 'correction')? What a strange definition you have of 'ignoring'. But my point isn't Irenaeus, my point is Eusebius (who had access to Origen's library) recorded a different version of Matthew 28:19. Why would Eusebius change a passage, removing the idea of the trinity? Or was he using an original version of the passage? As my other examples show, the early Christians were not averse to changing scripture on theological grounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The earliest NT manuscripts which contain Matthew 28:19 that are extant say 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'
350 AD or later, so irrelevant to my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Nor does your argument that Eusebius (c. AD 263- 339) didn't know of any 2nd century manuscripts in which Matthew 28:19 said, ''In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'' have any validity. As already shown from church fathers during the second century, baptism was performed in that manner.
Just because baptism was performed in the 2nd century AD doesn't mean Eusebius had access to Matthew 28:19 as we know it. And even if he did, that still leaves the question of why Eusebius used a different version of that passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
There is no evidence whatsoever that what we have in Matthew 28:19 doesn't go back to the original.
Apart from Eusebius using a different version for some reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
In post #56 you said,
''I'm not the one with contempt for what the earliest Christians actually said.''
It appears that you DO have contempt for what the earliest Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Didache) actually said.
Only if you misrepresent what I am arguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
By the way, since in post #56 you use Origen to argue that Matthew 28:19 doesn't in the earliest manuscripts say 'in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it seems that Origen himself in his Commentary on Romans 5:8 did recognize that Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Again irrelevant. I'm not talking about what Origen said, I'm talking about his library that Eusebius had access to.
No, I pointed to people at the end of the 2nd century AD and later talking about and quoting their scripture.
Only according to apologists. Historians date them to in a range of 80 years or so.
You misrepresent or misunderstand. Considering Justin Martyrs 'distinct' gods I mentioned (Trypho - Chapter LVI), I doubt very much if his baptism was a trinitarian one. But as that was not my point, it is irrelevant.
I'm ignoring it by agreeing Irenaeus could be the earliest reference (presuming it wasn't added at a later date as a 'correction')? What a strange definition you have of 'ignoring'. But my point isn't Irenaeus, my point is Eusebius (who had access to Origen's library) recorded a different version of Matthew 28:19. Why would Eusebius change a passage, removing the idea of the trinity? Or was he using an original version of the passage? As my other examples show, the early Christians were not averse to changing scripture on theological grounds.
350 AD or later, so irrelevant to my point.
Just because baptism was performed in the 2nd century AD doesn't mean Eusebius had access to Matthew 28:19 as we know it. And even if he did, that still leaves the question of why Eusebius used a different version of that passage.
Apart from Eusebius using a different version for some reason.
Only if you misrepresent what I am arguing.
Again irrelevant. I'm not talking about what Origen said, I'm talking about his library that Eusebius had access to.
Diogenes, you're beginning to bore me. I made my case in post #73 and that is my final word to you on the subject.
Last edited by Michael Way; 03-13-2018 at 11:52 AM..
The evidence of God Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit is overwhelming. From prophecies of the OT to the earliest believers murdered for their faith, information for Jesus as Lord cannot merely be waived off as fiction.
After reading several denier’s postings, I think the motivation is clear. It is not evidence that makes them unbelievers but something else. I firmly believe there is sin or a dogma that they just do not want to relinquish.
Your sentiments are immaterial, especially when it is the religious dogma of men or their creeds.
Your sentiments are immaterial, especially when it is the religious dogma of men or their creeds.
Lol! You are hilarious!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
