Catholics Covering Up Proof that Matthew 28:19 was Corrupted by "Trinitarians"?


#1

Fellow Catholics I discovered by accident a preposterous claim by some Baptist Preacher that the Catholic Church is covering up proof that the early church was duped by so called “Trinitarians” into forging the Trinitarian Formula into Matthew 28:19’s accounts of how to baptise. The claim is that a Hebrew version of Matthew 28:19 exists and proves that we are instructed to only baptise in the name of Jesus. The reference is to a translation in 1995 by Dr. George Howard of Shem Tov’s Matthew Hebrew Gospel. Anyone have any insight into the credibility of this so called “Hebrew” scriptural source? Is it even recognized as an authentic historical period spurious or apocrypha work?

Matthew 28:19-20 (NASB)
19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Absolute Proof Matthew 28:19 Has Been Corrupted by Trinitarians

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-perversion-proof2.gif http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-perversion-proof.gif

Note: The “pastor” Reckart wants credit for being the “first” to post image files of the text. These image files link to his site and are not local copies.

James


#2

First of all… looking at the “script” of the document… it is not aged, on the right type of paper and the actual letters are too perfect… like composed on a computer… so if they are claiming this is a photo of original works from the first century… ummm… no way!!!


#3

Baptism

In addition to the necessary word “baptize”, or its equivalent, it is also obligatory to mention the separate Persons of the Holy Trinity. This is the command of Christ to His Disciples, and as the sacrament has its efficacy from Him Who instituted it, we can not omit anything that He has prescribed. Nothing is more certain than that this has been the general understanding and practice of the Church. Tertullian tells us ( 13On Baptism): “The law of baptism (tingendi) has been imposed and the form prescribed: Go, teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” St. Justin Martyr ( 1First Apology) testifies to the practice in his time. St. Ambrose ( 4On the Mysteries) declares: “Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he can not obtain the remission of his sins,” St. Cyprian (Epistle 72), rejecting the validity of baptism given in the name of Christ only, affirms that the naming of all the Persons of the Trinity was commanded by the Lord (in plena et adunata Trinitate). The same is declared by many other primitive writers, as St. Jerome (IV, in Matt.), Origen ( I.2De Principiis), St. Athanasius (, Oration 4Against the Arians), St. Augustine ( 6.25On Baptism). It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the common names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be used, provided the Persons be expressed by words that are equivalent or synonymous. But a distinct naming of the Divine Persons is required and the form: “I baptize thee in the name of the Holy Trinity”, would be of more than doubtful validity.
The singular form “In the name”, not “names”, is also to be employed, as it expresses the unity of the Divine nature. When, through ignorance, an accidental, not substantial, change has been made in the form (as In nomine patriâ for Patris), the baptism is to be held valid.


#4

Well it looks to me like the good pastor simply photo copied a page out of a book by the original translator (without giving him credit LOL). I find it extremely amusing that the good pastor wants to be “the first” to put up an image file for a publication that is so over 10 years old - I have no way to know if this site is even maintained or current. I mean, any kid with a scanner could do the same thing.

Ironically, if one can read the fuzzy image text it does not even appear to remotely resemble the text in the vicinity of Matthew 28:19. I don’t even see a reference to baptism at all. How convenient for those who do not teach the need to baptise. :wink:

So we could have either a case of severe incompetence (he put up the wrong image page LOL) or we have just another typical bait and switch emotional headliner hype to hook anti-Catholics searching for more reasons to hate Catholics to come join his church or “college”.

It sure seems that there are a LOT of fundamentalist these days who are trying to make a living peddling hatred and anti-Catholic teachings to anyone who is inclined to pay them for spewing contempt and false teaching. I suppose some people’s faith is so shallow that there is a huge market for those willing to grasp at anything plausible that might give them a false hope that Catholics are wrong about needing to follow what Jesus actually taught and obey the bishops and take the sacraments. :shrug:

James


#5

Well, allow me to disagree…

In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist says that one will come who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Then you get into Paul’s writing, where he speaks about being baptized by “One spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Finally, why HEBREW? The language spoken at the time was Aramaic, and most theologians still hold that the first writing was in Greek.

Personally, I would question this pastor’s “self gain”


#6

I agree. If there was a complete conspiracy it would have required 5 different apostles to have betrayed Jesus’ teachings like Judas did. The need for Baptism is mentioned in all the 4 gospels as well as Paul’s writings. So there is absolutely no question about the apostolic teaching of baptism itself. All that anyone can attack here is the Trinitarian Formula - but we have massive amounts of early church teachings that ratify what is in Matthew.

What is ironic is that these charges of fraud are coming from a fundamentalist who subscribes to “sola scriptura”. I’d like to ask the good pastor why he had to to “extra-biblical” to get to new sources of information to refute the very same scripture that he claims is inspired & self sufficient for his salvation? :shrug:

I get the mental image of a man who is busy sawing away the branch he stands on to spite the tree. How self defeating is that?

Here are all the baptism references I can find in scripture:

Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.

2 Mark 1
8 I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

3 Luke 3
16 John answered, saying unto all: I indeed baptize you with water; but there shall come one mightier that I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

4 John 1
25 And they asked him, and said to him: Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet?

5 John 1
26 John answered them, saying: I baptize with water; but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not.

6 John 1
33 And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

7 John 4
2 (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,)

8 1 Corinthians 1
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

James


#7

Though I think this is from a different source (ie, not the pastor in as stated above). Here’s more of an indepth study regarding this subject:

israelofgod.org/Constantine.htm


#8

[FONT=Rockwell Extra Bold][size=]* Is Matt. 28:19 a Late Interpolation?*[/size][/FONT]


#9

CAF DIscussion on the Trinity


#10

I spent considerable time reviewing this source. Thanks.

It is quite interesting and gives credible evidence that there was certainly some early tinkering with the scriptural manuscripts that were all the source codex of our current bibles. What a shame that we don’t have those very first original manuscripts still in existence!

Given that there is some evidence of scribal tinkering, albeit apparently well intentioned, it appears that advocates of fundamentalist sola scriptura ( as well as non-Trinitarians) who attack Catholic teaching on the trinity MUST themselves accept the plain fact the scripture is not “so pure” of human influence as they imagine it to be. This just gives more credence to the need for proper apostolic teaching and tradition.

In fact I would say this analysis reflects the possibility of later period infusion of traditions held by the scribes - who all no doubt held strong Christian trinitarian beliefs (e.g. Catholic). Since Catholics accept tradition as equally valid with scripture I really see no generic issue here for Catholics. These assertions here cast no grave doubts on scripture as long as we can ascertain that the tradition of the 3rd and 4th century scribes were representative of the proper “apostolic traditions” to warrant the embellishments. No doubt though the agenda of these sort of sites is it attack either the apostolic tradition or to try to high jack it and say that anyone but Catholics follow the apostolic teaching. They can’t have it both ways though while holding to a sola scriptura mind-set since they use the same source references and must as a consequence of translation pick up written traditions.

Clearly though, Protestant bibles have blindly parroted the doxologies from Catholic traditions and other similar things not found in original manuscripts into their KJV’s (reference the doxology a the end of the Lord’s Prayer found in Catholic traditions but not in the original manuscripts). So, in a very ironic way, Protestants “embrace some Catholic tradition” through their insistence in the doctrine of “by scripture alone”. :wink: They just get it it through written form from the (Catholic) scribes of the manuscripts - not from the Catholic Teaching directly. This is kind of amusing. :smiley:

The thing that does not appear to be provable from this source is one plausible theory that the trinitarian formula may have been EDITED OUT of the the original manuscripts as a means of reverence to “The Trinity” in much the same way that the Jews reverence God’s proper name by dropping the Hebrew vowels from His proper Jewish spelling in the OT to render it Yahweh [YHWH] (and which by the way the Jehovah Witnesses later through naively and incompetence demonstrate their lack of familiarity with scripture by interpreting the abbreviation literally as “Jehovah” to coin a whole name for God. :smiley: :rotfl:).

Let’s assume that the theory about the trinitarian friendly scribes editing the manuscripts to insert the trinitarian formula into Matthew 28:19 is an accurate assessment. Does anyone really think that in light of other non-contested of Jesus statements that ‘He and the Father are One’ and the sending of The Holy Spirit that Christians that baptise “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are not baptising in the same name as “Jesus”? Given that the proper name of Jesus in Aramaic its “Yeshua” and many other variants exist (IHESUS, Iesous, Jesu, Yahoshua, Joshua, DeJesus ) and no westerners call Jesus by the same name His disciples nor His mother called Him would Yashua recognize a baptism made in the english name of “Jesus” alone? I could be wrong but I bet that Jesus knew his name as “son” when Mary spoke to him. :wink: If some insist in literalness then they must be consistent in how they approach Jesus’ commandments and should invoke His name in the same form He himself used. That was not “Jesus”.

Frankly I see that the traditional trinitarian expression “in the name of the…” as being all inclusive, reverent usage of an unambiguous and exclusive title that is no less a name than a personal name. Really, “so what” if it may exceed the requirements of the literal instruction? Does anyone really doubt that Jesus’s identity in not glorified and invoked through the trinitarian pronunciation? The power is in the person not the language pronunciation of the name. It’s not like Jesus needs a magical incantation formula like “alakhazam” to invoke Him. And people call Catholics superstitious and pagan? :smiley:

Do non-Trinitarian’s call themselves “Christians” (Title) or “Jesus’ians” (Name) and do they consider Christians baptised by the Trinitarian formula bogus? If bogus, what “is the name” that they would have us use since “Jesus” only spoke Aramaic and perhaps a little Greek but certianly did not speak of Himself by the English name “Jesus”?

Personally I say that stating the Trinitarian formula in baptism exceeds the literal requirements and Jesus knows that we refer to Him we say "in the name of “The Son”.

James


#11

Buffalo - this link does not work. I tried to Google it but I can’t get to it. Do you have a better link?

James


#12

Try it again. It worked for me on two different computers.


#13

OK, it works now thanks!

This is good stuff.

Ploughman is proven completly wrong and using Skeptical hermeneutics. There is SOLID scriptural evidence outside of Matthew 28:19 that clearly makes the case for the Trinity as well as additional supporting evidence in the Didache that Trinity was always preached by the apostles.

Scriptural Support for Trinity:

2 Corinthians 13:14 Is a clear association of the 3 divine persons by Paul.
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

1 Corinthians 12:4-6 And again…
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

1 Peter 1-2 and again by Peter himself
*…according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey **Jesus Christ *and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Didache 7:3 Again from the Didache
…but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 1:2 is seperate scriptural evidence for God The Father with The Son
2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

John 1:1, John 1:14 More scriptural evidence for the Second person of God with The Son
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And* the Word was made flesh**, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.*

Acts 5:3-4 Scriptural evidence for the 3rd person God the Holy Spirit with God the Father
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the* Holy Ghost**, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. *

More evidence for Jesus as the 2nd person of God
"Before Abraham was, I AM," (John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14). He was called God by God in Heb. 1:8, “But of the Son He says,‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,’” and John 1:1,14 says that He is "…the Word was God…and became flesh

Here is another link that supports Trinitarian views.
The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum

It sounds to me like the only cover up and coruption that is going on here is a blatant attempt by anti-trinitarian heretics to make a false charge and cover up the truth with corrupted intellects while pretending to possess divine omniscience. :wink:

Case closed. :clapping:

Next case.

James


#14

:slight_smile: Buffalo - trampling heresy wherever it lies.


#15

Baptists believe that baptism is a mere symbol. Why are they now concerned about the formula of a mere symbol?


#16

I don’t know, but it seems to me this brand of Protestantism eventually leads to atheism. How? Whenever their Plan A (to discredit Catholic doctrine) fails, they try Plan B (to discredit parts of Scripture that support Catholic doctrine). Onlookers eventually lose faith in Christ altogether. And who benefits from this if not the Devil?


#17

I have given up trying to figure out what it is that Baptists all really believe anymore. They seem to have taken their “four freedoms” to the extreme absurdity of enslaving themselves to the freedom to do & think most anything that one might possibly imagine that the bible teaches privately.

There are now so many wildly different sects of Baptists that I think “baptist” has become a generic term for “fundamentalism tolerated and taught here - come in and ask”. In other words the term “baptist” is now almost become just a high-level yellow page category that people are familiar with from their familial situations but its a gamble (if that is not a sin) if it resembles anything they might have previoulsy recognized as children or as the same thing their parents knew.

The last I heard was the irony that in spite of their moniker, many “baptists” no longer even believe in baptism anymore at all.

I think this guy in the OP was what they call a “Full Gospel Baptist” who baptise in the name of Jesus alone.

I just have to shake my head when I see all this nonsense coming out of the whole Protestant mess…

James


#18

Most definately. This is why I made the comment about the good pastor cutting off the branch he was standing on just to spite “the tree”. Its suicidal and insanity. One can not serve God or build up the body of Christ by trying to divide God against Himself through scripture. Eventually they end up so badly damaging their own intellects with this sort of twisted thinking that they can’t believe anything that remotely resembles “Christian”. Once Christians start infighting about the most fundamental things such as baptism - we know something is very sick indeed.

If one considers the absurdity of this sort of thing taken together with the other world sins (rampant fornication & immorality, abortion, rebellion against authority, fraud, treachery and deceit, false teachers, acceptance of homosexuality, wanton materialism, secularism etc.) we can imagine that those burning in hell from God’s punishment of Sodom & Gomorrah have a strong case to demand equal Justice for worse crimes than they ever they committed. :eek:

Its either “Penance, Penance, Penance” as the avenging angel warned at Fatima or its time to say “incoming - fire in the hole”… :eek:

James


#19

About 1635 a Jew, Shem Tob ben Shaprut in Spain worte a polemic against Christianity, in which Matthew in Hebrew is incorporated as a separate chapter.
Professor Howard thinks that Shem-Tob’s Matthew is not a translation but rather a recension of an older Matthew representing the actual Gospel as Matthew wrote it in Hebrew.

So, is it?


#20

If Matthew 28:19 was corrupted, then the Holy Spirit through the church would have noticed this and would have rejected this verse, but since God gave the Church the grace of infallibility, the Church agreed that the verse was not corrupted, and that the scripture taught the true about the trinity. :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.