Matthew 28:19 – Trinity corrupted verse

[keithr]

A claim made by a 14th century Jew over a document that no one has seen is not a legitimate correction. An original Hebrew manuscript doesn't exist. There are no original manuscripts for any book of the Bible, they are all extant copies.

You've got your facts wrong. A 14th century Jew never claimed anything. He merely published a complete copy of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. In 1987 that was translated into English, and that reveals the original version of Mat. 28:19. Nobody was claiming anything, nor saying that the original manuscript still existed, and if you read my first post again you'll notice that this isn't the only evidence for believing Mat. 28:19 has been corrupted.

To remind you, here's what I wrote about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew:

It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

A work by a 14th century rabbi, Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut, included the whole of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and in 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.​

 

[Illuminator]

You've got your facts wrong. A 14th century Jew never claimed anything. He merely published a complete copy of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. In 1987 that was translated into English, and that reveals the original version of Mat. 28:19. Nobody was claiming anything, nor saying that the original manuscript still existed, and if you read my first post again you'll notice that this isn't the only evidence for believing Mat. 28:19 has been corrupted.

To remind you, here's what I wrote about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew:

It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

A work by a 14th century rabbi, Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut, included the whole of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and in 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.​

The Jews rejected the message of the New Testament, and have no authority to to determine what belongs in the Bible. "Dr." G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, (Oneness Pentecostal bias) sells degrees on line for $595.

Tucked away at the end of the Gospel of Matthew is the great commission. It reads, “Therefore, go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit” (Mat 28.19). Oftentimes modalists and unitarians question the validity of this verse because of its trinitarian flavor. Typically, the questioner makes the point that we do not have manuscripts of Matthew 28.19 before a.d 325 when the church ratified the Trinitarian creed at Nicea and that they were all corrupted at that time. Furthermore, they refer to Eusebius, the famous church historian, because he quotes an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 (i.e. “Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name”) in his writings. Although it certainly wouldn’t ruin my day if Matthew 28.19 turned out to be spurious, I am wary of textual arguments motivated by theology. As a result, I want to lay out for you the reasons why every handwritten and printed Greek text contains the full version of Matthew 28.19.

Manuscript Evidence

Even though there is absolutely no textual variation whatsoever for Matthew 28.19 in the manuscripts, some allege these manuscripts are ALL wrong and a corruption entered into the picture during or after the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 when the Trinity became accepted. There are two points to keep in mind here:
firstly, the Trinity was not codified until a.d. 381 (the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 merely decided that Jesus was God while leaving the Holy Spirit out of the equation);
secondly, there are a number of Greek papyri dating from the third century. Sadly, these earlier manuscripts, like most manuscripts, are only accessible to those with special access to the museums where they are stored. I wish CSNTM published these on their website, but they don’t. However, if there was an early manuscript with even a slight variation, Bruce Metzger’s UBS 4th edition or his Commentary on the GNT would note it. For the sake of argument let’s assume there really are no manuscripts before a.d. 325 that contain Matthew 28. Where does that leave us? We still have thousands of manuscripts, some of which date back to the fourth century (like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). These manuscripts contain the standard reading of Matthew 28.19. This is significant because these differ from one another in many places, so it is not like Constantine or whoever forcibly standardized all the New Testament manuscripts in a.d. 325. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that later manuscripts are copied from earlier ones. Thus, a later, or even medieval manuscript, could preserve a very early reading. Again, we have no evidence of an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 in any of these manuscripts.

 

[Illuminator]

For the shorter reading hypothesis to be correct, someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading. This is quite a conspiracy theory that requires a level of control that did not exist at that time. Fourth century Christianity was a mess organizationally, which is why the century was chock full of controversies and councils. If there was a strong pope figure in the fourth century this theory might be possible, but he would still lack the power and thoroughness to ensure that every last scrap of the original Matthew 28.19 was destroyed. We know this because a Roman emperor once tried to do something similar—a man named Diocletian. In the early fourth century he fiercely persecuted Christianity and tried to collect and destroy all of the New Testament manuscripts, which is why we do not have many from before the fourth century. But even the Great Diocletian who had the full power of the Roman government behind him could not accomplish this task. Thus, the hypothesis that some sect within Christianity succeeded in tweaking all the manuscripts is untenable.

Early Quotes by Christian Authors

Even if we cannot find or access early manuscripts before the fourth century to see if they contain Matthew 28.19, we can still consult the many Christian authors who lived in the second and third centuries to see how they cited it. Below is a list of a few quotations.

Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4

“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”

First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61

“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”

Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1

“…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 Spirit.’…”

On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13

“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”

The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18

“And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.”

Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7

“…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…”

The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it. Furthermore, I have not found any controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. This is mounting up to be a really solid case: not only do ALL extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28.19 in them contain the traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the traditional version. Suddenly the case from Eusebius’ quotations does not seem so impressive. Even so, let’s consider Eusebius’ statements to better understand what is happening.

 

[GEN2REV]

Let's play a little Mad Libs just to make a point. Let's look at Philippians 2:9-11 and just SEE how this works out.

"Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him The Name that is above every name, that at the name of (father, son and holy ghost) every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that (father, son and holy ghost) is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Hmm ... I dunno about you, but that just ... doesn't work for me. And doesn't align with a single scripture anywhere, to be sure.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

That name is ... Jesus Christ.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4

“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”

Just making things up as he goes along. None of these "conditions" are scriptural.

First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61

“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”

an after the fact event ( not required FOR salvation as stated by the author)

Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1

“…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 Spirit.’…”

Does not specific water, that's talking about the saturation (immersion) of the Holy Spirit

On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13

“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”

What is this "law" and who imposed it and where is it written?

and the beat goes on

 

[David in NJ]

Thank you. Let’s try again:

Using Scripture alone can you tell me how many books are supposed to be in the Bible you quote from?

I just gave you The Answer. This is The Only Answer God wants us to know.

Maybe this will help you - "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Maybe this - "Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth."

How about this - "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

And This - "He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence."

 

[David in NJ]

Let's play a little Mad Libs just to make a point. Let's look at Philippians 2:9-11 and just SEE how this works out.

"Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him The Name that is above every name, that at the name of (father, son and holy ghost) every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that (father, son and holy ghost) is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Hmm ... I dunno about you, but that just ... doesn't work for me. And doesn't align with a single scripture anywhere, to be sure.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

That name is ... Jesus Christ.

If this is true: Acts 4:12, then the Apostles must be false witnesses and Jesus must be a false prophet by making himself equal with God.

For the true and faithful prophet of God wrote : You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, and after Me none will come. I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is no Savior but Me. I alone decreed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God. Even from eternity I am He, and none can deliver out of My hand. When I act, who can reverse it?

 

[GEN2REV]

If this is true: Acts 4:12, then the Apostles must be false witnesses and Jesus must be a false prophet by making himself equal with God.

First you need to decide if Jesus ever DID make Himself equal with God to begin with. Most of you have fought tooth and nail to completely DENY that He ever did that, which is completely bogus because He DID many times.

Second of all, both these verses are accurate, you are just refusing, with great reluctance I might add, to accept that Jesus IS God.

Observe: I fixed it for you.

For the true and faithful prophet of God wrote : You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD(Jesus/Father/Most High God), “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe Me(Jesus/Father/Most High God) and understand that I am He(Jesus/Father/Most High). Before Me no god was formed, and after Me none will come. I, yes I, am the LORD(Jesus/Father/Most High), and there is no Savior but Me. I alone decreed and saved and proclaimed—I, and not some foreign god among you. So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD(Jesus/Father/Most High), “that I (Jesus) am God(Father/Most High). Even from eternity I am He, and none can deliver out of My hand. When I act, who can reverse it?

Isn't it interesting that The Father made Jesus 'KING' of all Creation, and not merely Prince?

How does a prince become the king? The king must die. That's the only way. So if The Father can NEVER die, then how is it that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

Better question: How is it that this title is given to God The Father here (1 Timothy 6:15) AND ALSO given to Jesus Christ here (Revelation 17:14; 19:16)??

When you accept that Jesus IS God, these things all fall into place perfectly. John 1:1,14 state it very clearly and Jesus claims it Himself many times. It takes GREAT EFFORT to refuse to accept this Truth.

 

[David in NJ]

First you need to decide if Jesus ever DID make Himself equal with God to begin with. Most of you have fought tooth and nail to completely DENY that He ever did that, which is completely bogus because He DID many times.

Second of all, both these verses are accurate, you are just refusing, with great reluctance I might add, to accept that Jesus IS God.

Observe: I fixed it for you.


Isn't it interesting that The Father made Jesus 'KING' of all Creation, and not merely Prince?

How does a prince become the king? The king must die. That's the only way. So if The Father can NEVER die, then how is it that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

Better question: How is it that this title is given to God The Father here (1 Timothy 6:15) AND ALSO given to Jesus Christ here (Revelation 17:14; 19:16)??

When you accept that Jesus IS God, these things all fall into place perfectly. John 1:1,14 state it very clearly and Jesus claims it Himself many times. It takes GREAT EFFORT to refuse to accept this Truth.

I must of confused you with someone else on here who denies all that you wrote back to me = Jesus is IAM.

What i said was to lure the other person into seeing EXACTLY what you clearly stated = which is exactly what i know and believe.

Very refreshing to here this from you. They were all fighting against scripture just as you put it - 'tooth and nail'.

My favorite scripture i would point them to is "But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light.
Revelation 21:22-23

 

[David in NJ]

First you need to decide if Jesus ever DID make Himself equal with God to begin with. Most of you have fought tooth and nail to completely DENY that He ever did that, which is completely bogus because He DID many times.

Second of all, both these verses are accurate, you are just refusing, with great reluctance I might add, to accept that Jesus IS God.

Observe: I fixed it for you.


Isn't it interesting that The Father made Jesus 'KING' of all Creation, and not merely Prince?

How does a prince become the king? The king must die. That's the only way. So if The Father can NEVER die, then how is it that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

Better question: How is it that this title is given to God The Father here (1 Timothy 6:15) AND ALSO given to Jesus Christ here (Revelation 17:14; 19:16)??

When you accept that Jesus IS God, these things all fall into place perfectly. John 1:1,14 state it very clearly and Jesus claims it Himself many times. It takes GREAT EFFORT to refuse to accept this Truth.

I had you confused with member 'apologetic sheepdog' who fights against John 1:1 and other scriptures that show God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[GEN2REV]

I had you confused with member 'apologetic sheepdog' who fights against John 1:1 and other scriptures that show God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It's very easy to confuse people on here because there are often multiple people arguing the same point against you. (Personally, I believe they are often the same person behind multiple screen names - see my signature.)

I like the Revelation verses you quoted. I just came across the following before I saw your post here.

Look at Romans 11:36 and compare it to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.

Rom. 11:36 "For of Him(The Father) and through Him and to Him are all things, ..."
1 Cor 8:6 " ... there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, ... and ... Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, ..."

Also if you compare verse 5 & 6, it is contrasting the many gods and lords of other religions with our ONE God. It wouldn't have the same impact if it were saying 'look at all these other religions with multiple gods while we have two.'

It's clearly emphasizing our ONE God to all the rest having multiple.

 

[David in NJ]

It's very easy to confuse people on here because there are often multiple people arguing the same point against you. (Personally, I believe they are often the same person behind multiple screen names - see my signature.)

I like the Revelation verses you quoted. I just came across the following before I saw your post here.

Look at Romans 11:36 and compare it to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.

Rom. 11:36 "For of Him(The Father) and through Him and to Him are all things, ..."
1 Cor 8:6 " ... there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, ... and ... Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, ..."

Also if you compare verse 5 & 6, it is contrasting the many gods and lords of other religions with our ONE God. It wouldn't have the same impact if it were saying 'look at all these other religions with multiple gods while we have two.'

It's clearly emphasizing our ONE God to all the rest having multiple.

If you go back and check my posts (you don't have to) you would see me pleading with them with scriptures to just believe what is written. Just as you did for me - THANK YOU - It was very refreshing - loved it.

I tell them that Genisis (Let Us make man in Our Image)laid the foundation for Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE.
Exodus verifies the foundation laid in Genesis

Then Moses asked God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ What should I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.…

 

[keithr]

How do Trinity believers understand Romans 8:29 (WEB)?:

For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.​

Or, as the REB translates it:

For those whom God knew before ever they were, he also ordained to share the likeness of his Son, so that he might be the eldest among a large family of brothers;​

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I had you confused with member 'apologetic sheepdog' who fights against John 1:1 and other scriptures that show God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I don't fight against it, I simply correctly define it.

 

[GEN2REV]

I don't fight against it, I simply correctly define it.

Know this FIRST ... no scripture is intended for any PRIVATE interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

What is written, by those CHOSEN by God to write His Words, is what is written ... and it means what it reads.

If you can argue with that any further, there's just no reaching you.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Know this FIRST ... no scripture is intended for any PRIVATE interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

What is written, by those CHOSEN by God to write His Words, is what is written ... and it means what it reads.

If you can argue with that any further, there's just no reaching you.

Not argument, just reproof for some sheep who lost their way a bit

first- that's not my "private interpretation" as I stated information to shore it up in proper context. Also, the fact you don't like/believe/understand/accept any of it is not an "absolute standard" anything is judged by and your own understanding is sadly lacking and your mind equally closed.

Second- yes it means what it reads but that carries the caveat of proper translation across all areas and even then read in context with all others. Another thing you need to do.

Third- I'm not arguing with you. I am correcting you with the correct application of the scripture. That's not only in compliance with scripture but now puts the burden of "proving me false" back on you because if you cannot then that points to the error in understanding is elsewhere.

So, put your ego aside and lets intelligently discuss the issue and see where the truth actually is.

Do you actually understand what Jn 1:1 actually says and means? ( with references) and how it fits in the context of Genesis and other scripture?

Tell me.

 

[Marymog]

I just gave you The Answer. This is The Only Answer God wants us to know.

Maybe this will help you - "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

Maybe this - "Brothers, consider the time of your calling: Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth."

How about this - "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."

And This - "He chose the lowly and despised things of the world, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence."

Thanks David.
You just proved my point. You can't use sola Scriptura to reveal what books or how many books should be in our Bible. You wanna know why!! Because the Holy Spirit revealed to MEN what books are to be in the Bible you quote from. Those men used TRADITION (2 Thessalonians 2:15) to settle once and for all what 27 books you quote from.

Christian History lesson: For hundreds of years after the death of Christ different christian churches throughout the world had MANY different books in their bible that they thought was inspired. The men of The Church, with guidance by the Holy Spirit, decided for ALL Christians what books were inspired by God and should be in your bible.

Conclusion: The 16th century sola Scriptura teaching that you love so much is YOUR "worse nightmare" since it is not based on what is taught in Scripture.

Mary

 

[David in NJ]

Thanks David.
You just proved my point. You can't use sola Scriptura to reveal what books or how many books should be in our Bible. You wanna know why!! Because the Holy Spirit revealed to MEN what books are to be in the Bible you quote from. Those men used TRADITION (2 Thessalonians 2:15) to settle once and for all what 27 books you quote from.

Christian History lesson: For hundreds of years after the death of Christ different christian churches throughout the world had MANY different books in their bible that they thought was inspired. The men of The Church, with guidance by the Holy Spirit, decided for ALL Christians what books were inspired by God and should be in your bible.

Conclusion: The 16th century sola Scriptura teaching that you love so much is YOUR "worse nightmare" since it is not based on what is taught in Scripture.

Mary

All that you stated is just religion - You keep your religion and I will be kept by Jesus through Sola Scriptura and the Holy Spirit which is the power of God for us who believe = Sola Scriptura - Amen

The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us ( Immanuel - God with us).......Amen

 

[Marymog]

All that you stated is just religion - You keep your religion and I will be kept by Jesus through Sola Scriptura and the Holy Spirit which is the power of God for us who believe = Sola Scriptura - Amen

The WORD became flesh and dwelt among us ( Immanuel - God with us).......Amen

No, I didn’t state religion. I stated facts from YOUR Christian history.

Thanks for your time.

 

[David in NJ]

No, I didn’t state religion. I stated facts from YOUR Christian history.

Thanks for your time.

This is the only history i care about - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms.
For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence.
He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,