|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 10, 2011 0:43:54 GMT -8
If you read the books of Acts Paul and several other apostles baptize believers in "Jesus Name" or "in the name of Jesus Christ." Why don't we? Most post Apostolic churches baptize people in the "name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit." Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2011 7:58:06 GMT -8
If you read the books of Acts Paul and several other apostles baptize believers in "Jesus Name" or "in the name of Jesus Christ." Why don't we? Most post Apostolic churches baptize people in the "name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit." Just wondering. Kevin, Good question. I think it deserves its own thread. (which also gets you one point in the current contest/ drawing!) This observation has, actually inspired a whole cult following. There are so called "Jesus-only" churches that say that baptisms that don't use the phrase "in the name of Jesus" are not valid. The reason why most baptisms use the formula "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is because that phrase comes from Matthew 28:19: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...I believe that "jesus-only" churches say that because this was said first, and later we find in Acts that they actually said "in the name of Jesus", this first mandate has somehow been superceded. Their motivation in all this, by the way, is that they deny the Trinity. That's what happens when we cling to heavily to a ultra-literal application. It's much more logical to see Luke's phrase "in the name of Jesus" as shorthand for having to write out "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Or, it might be that different early Christian communities used different phrases (perhaps Matthew's community using the more trinitarian formula, Paul's communities using the shorter Jesus reference). |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 10, 2011 8:05:41 GMT -8
Personally I think that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" were added to the text (Matthew 28:19) around the 3 century. There seems to be no evidence that these words were part of any texts prior to the 3rd century.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2011 8:08:20 GMT -8
That's true of the phrase in the Johannine texts, but I believe here in Matthew 28 it's original and not debated.
Let's look into it a bit more...
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 10, 2011 20:06:08 GMT -8
It's been awhile since I studied this issue, but I think Robin is correct about the Matt 28 verse if memory serves me right. I also seem to remember that baptism is not unique to Christianity. But I don't think it really matters. The real question is, who are declaring your submission and your allegiance to in your baptism? Jesus, the Father, The Son, or the Holy Spirit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2011 20:39:28 GMT -8
The following is what I found:
There are like 4 references to this verse in the Church Fathers well before the 300's which say "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost".
Plus, there are no extant alternate versions of Matthew 28:19 without the Trinitarian formula.
It's merely an argument from silence to say that Matthew 28:19 contains an interpolation because we don't have any really old fragments of Matthew 28:19.
That the formula in Matthew 28:19 is not generally doubted is demonstrated by the fact that while many of the other Trinitarian formulas contain footnotes in modern bible explaining that they are not found in the oldest texts, Matthew 28:19 does not.
We have no good reason to reject the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" phrase in Matthew 28:19 that I can see.
From what I can see, only cult websites seem to challenge it (Christadelphians, Jesus-only, and a bunch of other left-fielders).
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 11, 2011 7:32:54 GMT -8
I believe that Ignatius quoted this verse but with the words " in my name". I'm going to look into this further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 11, 2011 20:08:53 GMT -8
I believe that Ignatius quoted this verse but with the words " in my name". I'm going to look into this further. I think it was Eusebius, but that was in the 4th Century. I think he was just saving space  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 12, 2011 12:18:35 GMT -8
you're right it was Eusebius. But apparently he quotes this verse 18 times and never used the trinitarian wording. I would imagine that if Eusebius considered the trinitarian wording to be authentic he would have sited it at least once.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 12, 2011 17:59:27 GMT -8
You mean we're not Christadelphians? I knew something was a little off about this church  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 12, 2011 18:47:08 GMT -8
There was something that made me suspect it was added, but I don't remember what (maybe the lack of early mss). Again, it was a long time since I've considered this. Bottom line for me is that I don't believe the words we use in the baptism rite matter at all. It's what's going on in the heart of the convert, and that is submission to Jesus. If the "formula" isn't said quite right, I'm pretty sure God is still smilin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 13, 2011 8:36:23 GMT -8
If you had to write it 18 times I think you'd shorten it as well ;D
But seriously, the point is that church fathers much earlier than he used the trinitarian formula in reference to the verse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 13, 2011 8:39:05 GMT -8
There was something that made me suspect it was added, but I don't remember what (maybe the lack of early mss). Again, it was a long time since I've considered this. Bottom line for me is that I don't believe the words we use in the baptism rite matter at all. It's what's going on in the heart of the convert, and that is submission to Jesus. If the "formula" isn't said quite right, I'm pretty sure God is still smilin'. My understanding is that there aren't any early MSS of this passage period, with or without the formula. And amen about the last part. That's where these cults always go wrong. 2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. |
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Aug 13, 2011 18:56:56 GMT -8
Another reason that we might have some difference within Acts vs Matthew is that the original documents much less copies would not have been widely available until toward the end of the first century. If Luke was accurately reporting what people said in his account then the events and dialogues he was recording would have predated the writing of Matthew by a good bit. I think the estimate on Matthew is the mid 50s? And even then i wasnt widely available to the whole church until years later. Luke is recording events that occurred from the circa a.d 30+ and on. here as Just to throw document history into the mix. ; )
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2011 19:49:52 GMT -8
Another reason that we might have some difference within Acts vs Matthew is that the original documents much less copies would not have been widely available until toward the end of the first century. If Luke was accurately reporting what people said in his account then the events and dialogues he was recording would have predated the writing of Matthew by a good bit. I think the estimate on Matthew is the mid 50s? And even then i wasnt widely available to the whole church until years later. Luke is recording events that occurred from the circa a.d 30+ and on. here as Just to throw document history into the mix. ; ) True, true. Most people think of the Gospels as being more "primary" than Paul, but chronologically, it's the other way around. The Gospels reflect more time for the authors to have reflected on the significance of things, but less historical immediacy. We were talking today a little bit about whether "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" really seems like a phrase Jesus would have literally said. It's quite possible that Matthew put the words in His mouth to explain more fully what the "name of Jesus" entailed. The gospel writers felt free to paraphrase Jesus a lot in order to better explain to their audience what Jesus meant. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 14, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -8
It's also possible that the church scribes paraphrased it in order to lend authority to an adopted tradition of a baptism script....just sayin'  |
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Aug 21, 2011 15:52:54 GMT -8
From the perspective of document history, if a paraphrase was added there normally would be some evidence of its addition from earlier documents that read differently. If i remember correctly the popular academic perspective on this passage was that 1. Trinitarian theology developed late (2-3) century 2. therefore the Matthew reference must have been an addition.
While the theory may be true the academic community has not been able to prove it either way (again if my memory serves) and so it remains just a theory.
I think an even more interesting conversation might be the historical phenomenon that need (in this case heresy) forces theological understand in new directions. Trinitarian theology and even the doctrine of Christ didnt really take formal shape until the heretics of the 2nd and 3rd century began preaching different doctrines. A fascinating interaction between the Bible and Culture as each society brings its different theological needs to the table and seeks to answer its own questions at the source of truth.
|
|
