Why The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Because I know we all have our Bibles, I will not clutter this post with my preferred translation but only cite the relevant verses. Read carefully Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:13; Galatians 3:27. Then ask yourself the question of Why The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord? See Matthew 28:19.

This verse always bothered me for 2 reasons: 1st, it seems so out of place, stuck at the end like that. It seems so off that the Messiah would wait until after he died to drop this bombshell on them. Trinitarians often use it to justify trinitarianism. But wait. Upon further reflection, Matthew 28:19 does not state the nature of God, at all. If he said to baptize people in the name of Moe, Larry and Curly or Earth, Wind & Fire, it does not mean this is the nature of God.

2nd, after reading this Gospel passage and read the rest of the Bible, you find the many times The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord by baptizing people in other ways. This makes no sense. If I saw a man come back from the dead and he told me to do something, I would go ahead and do it.

The Apostles chose to die rather than abandon their risen Lord. It seems baptizing people in whatever name he said is a much lower standard of commitment. Yet the post-Gospel account indicates the opposite. Again, this makes no sense. Excerpts from this site offers an alternative and logical explanation:
Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”

The following example comes from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have been the original or the first copy of the original. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19 which were, “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, Ch. 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates over the Godhead. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

So, in conclusion:
  1. The Apostles did NOT Repeatedly Disobey the Risen Lord but did as he commanded him to baptize people in his name only.
  2. 4th century trinitarians changed Matthew 28:19 to fit their doctrine.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Because I know we all have our Bibles, I will not clutter this post with my preferred translation but only cite the relevant verses. Read carefully Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:13; Galatians 3:27. Then ask yourself the question of Why The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord? See Matthew 28:19.

This verse always bothered me for 2 reasons: 1st, it seems so out of place, stuck at the end like that. It seems so off that the Messiah would wait until after he died to drop this bombshell on them. Trinitarians often use it to justify trinitarianism. But wait. Upon further reflection, Matthew 28:19 does not state the nature of God, at all. If he said to baptize people in the name of Moe, Larry and Curly or Earth, Wind & Fire, it does not mean this is the nature of God.

2nd, after reading this Gospel passage and read the rest of the Bible, you find the many times The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord by baptizing people in other ways. This makes no sense. If I saw a man come back from the dead and he told me to do something, I would go ahead and do it.

The Apostles chose to die rather than abandon their risen Lord. It seems baptizing people in whatever name he said is a much lower standard of commitment. Yet the post-Gospel account indicates the opposite. Again, this makes no sense. Excerpts from this site offers an alternative and logical explanation:
Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”

The following example comes from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have been the original or the first copy of the original. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19 which were, “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, Ch. 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates over the Godhead. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

So, in conclusion:
  1. The Apostles did NOT Repeatedly Disobey the Risen Lord but did as he commanded him to baptize people in his name only.
  2. 4th century trinitarians changed Matthew 28:19 to fit their doctrine.
That's very interesting! I hadn't heard that before even though I have read some of his works and have read 2-3 books dealing with the Council at Nicaea.

While I can't comment on your point about mat 28:19 being changed, even with our modern Bible we can figure out why the Apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. Eph 1 says the name of Christ is above every other name on earth and in the world to come. Paul later explains in the 3rd chapter that the whole family in heaven and earth is named, "Jesus Christ". So it makes sense that when you baptise in the name of Jesus, you are baptising in the name of the Father and the son and the Holy Ghost.
 

Michiah-Imla

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2020
6,142
3,277
113
Northeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
4th century trinitarians changed Matthew 28:19 to fit their doctrine.

Why introduce the possibility of Bible corruption when one could just simply conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same in nature with Jesus (the Son) and can all be identified with one name anyway?
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul later explains in the 3rd chapter that the whole family in heaven and earth is named, "Jesus Christ".

What verse in Eph 3 says this? If this is so, then why Matthew 28:19?

So it makes sense that when you baptise in the name of Jesus, you are baptising in the name of the Father and the son and the Holy Ghost.

This makes no sense at all.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why introduce the possibility of Bible corruption when one could just simply conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same in nature with Jesus (the Son) and can all be identified with one name anyway?

Because that is nonsense, circular reasoning. Jesus said to say X, Y and Z. For some reason, you are saying X = X, Y & Z. So, therefore to say X is to say X, Y & Z.

This is the exact same thing as disregarding what Jesus allegedly said in Matthew 28:19!
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’m not sure why I sense hostility from you here.
Neither do I.... I'm actually on his side. He has a very interesting theory which is well worth looking into. I just can't bring myself to say its correct without looking into it myself.

My only point is that even with today's Bible I see reasons why all through Acts they baptized in Jesus' name. It in no way contradicts his theory and even supports it.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’m not sure why I sense hostility from you here.

I’m not hostile to positions or beliefs I don’t share, just absurd or illogical rationalizing.

So tell me then;

What is the name of the Father?

What is the name of the Holy Spirit?

There is only one God, the Father. He is Spirit. His Spirit is Holy. There is no 3rd being or person.

Your questions are irrelevant to the thread. Stop rationalizing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I’m sure some unbelievers would use those same words against you for believing in the Bible.

Think about that my friend.

Sure. One of the favorite tactics of the political Left is to accuse the other side of what they are guilty of.

A couple of decades ago, I had a religious conversation with my BIL. When I asked him why he believed Catholic dogma, he repeatedly answered, ‘I just believe it.’

This is not rationalizing at all. So, there is that.
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,446
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sure. One of the favorite tactics of the political Left is to accuse the other side of what they are guilty of.

A couple of decades ago, I had a religious conversation with my BIL. When I asked him why he believed Catholic dogma, he repeatedly answered, ‘I just believe it.’

This is not rationalizing at all. So, there is that.
Indeed there is that!

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Heb 10:38
The writer indicates we are to live by faith... but what is it we are to have faith in...? One God, is it not, the One and only God, is it not?

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:2-3

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment." Matt 22:37-38

Why is no mention made of any three in one compilation or structuring of God in either place? Some people want us to believe in a trinity in God, but should we do so because they do? That would be faith in the beliefs of men, would it not? Since we are living by faith, the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, would it be right to embrace a trinity because someone else does... even someone we might respect? Are respected people never in error? Consider King David of Israel! Consider King Solomon of Israel!
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK and Wrangler

Amazed@grace

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2021
1,611
1,388
113
futurum, ubi non sunt atheus troglodytae
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Because I know we all have our Bibles, I will not clutter this post with my preferred translation but only cite the relevant verses. Read carefully Acts 2:38; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:13; Galatians 3:27. Then ask yourself the question of Why The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord? See Matthew 28:19.

This verse always bothered me for 2 reasons: 1st, it seems so out of place, stuck at the end like that. It seems so off that the Messiah would wait until after he died to drop this bombshell on them. Trinitarians often use it to justify trinitarianism. But wait. Upon further reflection, Matthew 28:19 does not state the nature of God, at all. If he said to baptize people in the name of Moe, Larry and Curly or Earth, Wind & Fire, it does not mean this is the nature of God.

2nd, after reading this Gospel passage and read the rest of the Bible, you find the many times The Apostles Repeatedly Disobeyed the Risen Lord by baptizing people in other ways. This makes no sense. If I saw a man come back from the dead and he told me to do something, I would go ahead and do it.

The Apostles chose to die rather than abandon their risen Lord. It seems baptizing people in whatever name he said is a much lower standard of commitment. Yet the post-Gospel account indicates the opposite. Again, this makes no sense. Excerpts from this site offers an alternative and logical explanation:
Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”

The following example comes from an unaltered book of Matthew that could have been the original or the first copy of the original. Thus Eusebius informs us of the actual words Jesus spoke to his disciples in Matthew 28:19 which were, “With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, Ch. 6, 132 (a), p. 152)

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicea and was involved in the debates over the Godhead. If the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted instead, “in my name.” So it appears that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

So, in conclusion:
  1. The Apostles did NOT Repeatedly Disobey the Risen Lord but did as he commanded him to baptize people in his name only.
  2. 4th century trinitarians changed Matthew 28:19 to fit their doctrine.
I can only imagine the fall out that will come from posting this historic truth. If Jesus did not teach it how dare ministers preach it.
 

Amazed@grace

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2021
1,611
1,388
113
futurum, ubi non sunt atheus troglodytae
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why introduce the possibility of Bible corruption when one could just simply conclude that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same in nature with Jesus (the Son) and can all be identified with one name anyway?
In some traditions the three are said to reside as separate and distinct person's. Tri-Theism. Not as the one God.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
4th century trinitarians changed Matthew 28:19 to fit their doctrine.

Ok, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Lol. There is absolutely no text in existence that supports this view. You are essentially telling me that the Living God did not preserve a single text of Matthew's gospel that preserved the truth properly of how He wanted baptism to be practiced? See, this is the problem I have with faithlessness in the power of God to preserve truth. No offense to you Wrangler, but if we are to accept that He was not responsible enough to preserve the truth in what we accept today as the Biblical cannon, we then leave ourselves open to buy absolutely anything. The opinion of Muslims becomes valid, and that only a few verses have been preserved accurately and the rest are just perversions written by the apostles of Christ, who had self-serving motives, and true "Christianity" is actually observed by following the tenets of Islam.

I can't go there. This is yet another case of having no faith in the Living God to preserve the truth in His word.

Blessings is Christ, and I hope you don't take it personally, but I find your position untenable and faithless.
HiH
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I can only imagine the fall out that will come from posting this historic truth. If Jesus did not teach it how dare ministers preach it.

There will be no effect because trinitarianism (mysticism and dualism) is so engrained, no presentation of facts or logic will alter their commitment to this 4th century man-made idol. Brother Kel, who makes Youtube videos, put it this way. Even if God, Himself, came down from the heavens and said, "I am the only God. Besides me, there is no other" it would make no difference because it already happened. Trinitarians suppose God does not know what he is talking about when he says this or the 1C; you shall have no other gods before me (singular pronoun).

It makes no difference to these mystics and dualists who hold antonyms as synonyms. They stretch this corruption to then be a statement of the nature of God, which it is not in anyway. See post #3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amazed@grace

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is absolutely no text in existence that supports this view.

I already provided the text.

You are essentially telling me that the Living God did not preserve a single text of Matthew's gospel that preserved the truth properly of how He wanted baptism to be practiced?

No. I'm saying that preserved truth was corrupted in the documentation I already provided.
 

Amazed@grace

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2021
1,611
1,388
113
futurum, ubi non sunt atheus troglodytae
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There will be no effect because trinitarianism (mysticism and dualism) is so engrained, no presentation of facts or logic will alter their commitment to this 4th century man-made idol. Brother Kel, who makes Youtube videos, put it this way. Even if God, Himself, came down from the heavens and said, "I am the only God. Besides me, there is no other" it would make no difference because it already happened. Trinitarians suppose God does not know what he is talking about when he says this or the 1C; you shall have no other gods before me (singular pronoun).

It makes no difference to these mystics and dualists who hold antonyms as synonyms. They stretch this corruption to then be a statement of the nature of God, which it is not in anyway. See post #3.
Valid points all.
 

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
12,992
4,798
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

Sad but predictable attempt to artificially construct dogma from text it does not contain. If you want to take things out of context, a sliver of text here and there, you can reconstruct any doctrine you want. Point is the trinity is not in the Bible, period.

There is not one verse that states something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & HS - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but will be damed to hell forever.