I have written several blog posts on the “baptismal” phrase in “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

At the end I left what for some will be meaningless and for others will be very important. I mean the opinion of scriptural scholars holding the authority of eminent scientists. It turns out that doubts about the veracity of the text of Matthew 28:19 are widespread, but only among scientists. This knowledge does not reach rank-and-file believers. In the discussion held at the level of ordinary people, no one allows the thought that the text may not be true. At this level are also some groups that profess belief in one Elohim, in one person. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, do not question this text even in the footnotes of their translation. Meanwhile, the evidence is so strong that even adherents of the one Elohim in three persons reluctantly but nevertheless admit that the text is questionable.

So let’s see what the “scribes” have to say.

“Currently, biblical theologians accept that the Trinitarian formula is editorial in nature, a reflection of the practice of the early Church. Jesus most likely wanted to indicate only: Baptize them in my name, i.e., at my command, by my power, to distinguish their baptism from that of John the Baptist.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, KUL, vol. III, entry “Baptism”)

It’s hard to find a more official position than this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia edited by Catholic theologians. In further text, the editor explains that it “does not oppose the Trinitarian formula, since any reference to the Messiah is an indirect reference to the Trinity.” To put it bluntly, since the Trinity is non-negotiable it is irrelevant that the text from Matthew is “editorial in nature” (read: adulterated), since any mention of the Messiah is an indirect reference to the Trinity. The problem is that
Matthew 28:19 is the only text on which belief in the trinity is based.

Recall another example of redaction. In the Danzig Bible we find such a text:

“For there are three who testify in heaven: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

In the new translations of the Scriptures this text is no longer present. It was discovered and proven to be an example of forgery in the name of the trinity, but officially it is said to be an editorial error. Probably the only Polish translation of the Scriptures that still upholds this lie is the new translation of the Gdansk Bible, apparently someone cares a lot for the lie to spread further. It has changed the vocabulary to a more modern one to make the text more pleasant to read, but still leaves the obvious lie, which can only serve the father of the lie. To the editors who promote the lie, I will boldly refer to the words of our Master Yahusha:

“You have the devil for a father and want to fulfill your father’s desires. From the beginning he was a murderer and did not persevere in the truth, for the truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, from himself he speaks, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
John 8:44

Now we see that the baptismal phrase in Matthew 28:19, is also false. The purpose of the forgery is still the same to prove that the antichrist is “God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The above quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the only evidence that Catholic theologians know about the forgery.

Rev. Prof. Joseph Kudasiewicz: “In Jesus’ command to baptize (Matt.28:19) … giving them baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” it is necessary to distinguish the authentic, original words of the Lord from interpretive-editorial elements. The solemn Trinitarian form – “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” – is the liturgical formula for baptism in the early Church. This formula is missing from the baptismal injunction in Mark’s Gospel (16:16). In the missionary command (Matt.28:16-20), Jesus tells the disciples what to do: go, make disciples, baptize, teach. All these commanded actions correspond: What should be done? The Trinitarian formula, on the other hand, answers the question: how should one baptize? Thus it breaks out of the previous series. What, then, were the words spoken by Jesus himself? It is almost universally accepted by modern scholars that Jesus uttered the following phrase: “…baptizing in my name.” In this way, he contrasted his baptism with previous baptismal practices.

The formula “in my name” has a causal meaning, pointing to the source from which baptism draws its power. Understood in this way, Jesus’ saying is consistent with the introductory sentence: “All power is given to me” (Matt. 28:18). The Apostles and the early Church, referring to the word of Jesus, inserted the name of Jesus instead of the possessive pronoun “my”. Hence, in the baptismal formulas of the Acts of the Apostles one encounters the following: “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38;10:48) or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5).”
(“How to Understand the Holy Scriptures?” Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin 1987, Part III: “Jesus of History – Christ of Faith,” pp. 106 and 107).

Professor Kudasiewicz claims that this knowledge is common among scholars, so the question arises, why is it not equally common among so-called “Christians”? And here again is the scriptural answer.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut out the kingdom of heaven from people. You yourselves do not enter and do not allow those who go into it to enter.” Matthew 23:13

Similarly, we read in the Dictionary of Biblical Theology: “Baptism received in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 1 Cor.6:11) makes the baptized already belong to Christ and internally united with Him. This main effect of baptism is presented in various ways: the baptized person is clothed with Christ, constitutes one body with Him (Gal.3:27; Rom.13:14), besides, all who receive baptism are united among themselves in the same union with Christ (Gal.3:28) and with His glorious body (1Cor.12:13; Eph.4:4), from that moment they already constitute one Spirit with Christ (1Cor.6:17). Baptism in the name of Jesus makes one guess that at this baptism a phrase was most likely used in which only Christ was mentioned” (Fr. Xavier Leon-Dufor, translated by Bishop K. Romaniuk, Pallottinum Poznań 1982, p. 133).

“From the very beginning, the Church has administered baptism in the name of Jesus, i.e. with the idea of linking the baptized person to Jesus and to his power as Lord” (Xavier Leon- Dufour, “Dictionary of the New Testament”, translated by Bishop K. Romaniuk, St. Adalbert’s Bookstore Poznań 1986, p.188 and 189).

Bishop Kazimierz Romaniuk also has doubts about the Trinitarian formula. Here is what he writes: “Much more frequent in the New Testament are references to baptism in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Lord Jesus (…). It is therefore possible – this is the opinion of most exegetes today – that the Trinitarian formula is a somewhat later creation (…)” (“Biblical Sacramentology,” Salesian Publishing House, Warsaw 1994, p. 19).

I quote all these revelations after Boleslaw Parma and his booklet, “What the Scriptures Teach About Baptism.” I conclude from this that this knowledge is also becoming more and more known in Protestant movements. This is also evidenced by the following quotes from the same booklet.

For example, Protestant New Testament expert Rudolf K. Bultmann stated that “baptism in one name referred to baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, later extended to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (“Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” 1961, p. 133).

Lutheran theologian Adolf von Harnack said of the Trinitarian formula that “these are not the words of the Lord” (“Dogmengeschichte,” vol. 1, p. 68).

E. Knupfer: “The striking contrast and illogical internal inconsistency of this record … raises the suspicion of a deliberate contamination [of the text] in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity” (“The Question of the Trinity and Mat. 28.19,” Fraternal Visitor, June 1924, pp. 147, 151).

Edmund Schlink: “The command to baptize as contained in Matthew 28:19 cannot be historically the original Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text was transmitted in an expanded form by the Church” (“The Doctrine of Baptism,” Saint Louis – New York, 1972, p. 28).

This is written by people who believe in the trinity, and how would they write it if they did not believe in Athanasius’ teaching? Athanasius himself, in his fight to get the trinity accepted, never cited the quote from Matthew 28:19 as proof of his claims and he certainly would have done so if such a text existed in this gospel at the time. We find such a baptismal formula only in the Didache and the writings of Justin, but we do not have a single manuscript of these writings from the period before the Council of Nicea, when the followers of Athanasius prevailed. What we do know is that later Writings were forged or, if you prefer, had traces of editorial corrections. The Didache not only accepts immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but also allows baptism consisting of pouring water and orders it to be done three times, that is, once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Spirit. The problem is that actually the ceremony performed in this way is not done in any name, because the names of the Father, Son and Spirit do not fall at it. They do not fall for the simple reason that we do not know the name of the Spirit and also the name of the Father is forgotten. In fact, so this type of baptism is in the name of the trinity and not in the true names belonging to Elohim and the Son. On a similar note, the baptism of Jehovah’s witnesses is in the name of the Organization.

Probably after the introduction of the belief in the trinity, immersions were also performed three times because we read:

“As late as the sixth century, the Catholic Pope Pelagius II (579-590) stated that “there are many who say that they baptize only in the name of Christ and by one immersion”.” (Rev. Prof. Dr. Marian Pastuszko, “Law on the Holy Sacraments. General Norms and the Sacrament of Baptism,” vol. I, Academy of Catholic Theology, Warsaw 1983).

It seems that the followers of Athanasius did not rest until they exterminated all those immersed in the name of Yahusha.

“The deeper thinkers among the people shall instruct many, but they shall perish by the sword, or grow old, or go into exile, or be discouraged by the lengthening of days.” Daniel 11:33 LXX

All the opponents of the trinity were never completely killed, because someone always supported them, according to the prophecy: “And when they perish, they will experience but little strengthening. But many will gather in the city against them, and many will come as to divide the inheritance.” Daniel 11:34

That’s why the Inquisition was established. Before that, the hunt for “heretics” was handled by the local courts, but since there was still someone covering for them even the local clergy, so courts were set up that came from outside and it was the Inquisition by no means holy. On this occasion, they got rich at the expense of the condemned because they had to pay all the court costs and even torture and their own execution. The Reformation did not change anything still hunted opponents of the trinity and whoever escaped the Inquisition died at the hands of the Protestants.

Today we have times in which we can once again investigate and inquire into the truth. Certainly, this happened by the will of the Creator. The prophecy foretold:

“But you, Daniel, hide the words and seal the book until the end times. Many will inquire, that knowledge may be multiplied.” Daniel 12:4

Research shows that the exact wording of Matthew 28:19 looks like this:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, giving them immersion in my name.”

______________________

By: “krzysztof the anointed servant from jeszu.pl“