I remind you that we are establishing the correct text of the gospel of Matthew 28:19. The text you are reading is the third part, and I encourage you to first read the first part „A closer look at Mt 28:19 – A Study of Textual Criticism” and then the second part „”In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” text analysis”. In today’s text, we refer to witnesses from early Christians living in the period of very early Christianity: the Anonymous author of Didache and Justin Martyr. These are witnesses cited by supporters of the Trinity, so it will be interesting. Sit comfortably, because we are starting.

Didache

Didache is dated to around 120 AD, but this is not the year from which the oldest manuscript comes, rather a supposition that the text could have been created around that year. In fact, the oldest Didache text we have is dated to the 11th century, so it was written 700 years after the Council of Nicaea. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that this text, like other texts, was somewhat changed on the topic of baptism. Didache contains a short chapter on baptism:

“As for baptism, baptize this way: Having first recited everything above, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If you do not have living water, baptize in another. If you cannot in cold water, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, both the one being baptized and the one baptizing, and also others if they can, should fast. And you shall instruct the one to be baptized to fast for one or two days before.”

It is clear there is a very broad possibility of administering baptism — from pouring water to immersion in living water, cold water, or warm water. If Trinity supporters want to cite Didache as a reliable source, they would also have to accept that immersion in water is not required, but pouring water on the head is sufficient (which actually suits Catholics). Another matter is that we have no evidence that this text was not falsified; on the other hand, we do have evidence that other similar texts were forged.

Didache in this fragment makes a huge leap from immersion to sprinkling, and that itself is already artificial and unworthy of belief. This instruction allows so many possibilities for baptism that it becomes absurd because it turns out that you can baptize however you want: if not this way, then that way, or otherwise. With such great freedom, the instruction loses its sense and it would be enough to give what is simplest to apply.

However, Didache in this fragment serves to justify the leap from immersion to sprinkling, hence it lists different methods. If it had omitted immersion in water, the early date of the text could be immediately questioned. Meanwhile, I question it not only because it has the later formula „in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but also because it recommends sprinkling as a proper form. This would have been impossible in such an early period. If we add to this the late origin of the oldest manuscript (11th century), the matter seems like an obvious manipulation.

Likewise, if we take the language into account. It is impossible for a Greek text to arise that recommends pouring water on the head as baptism because it would refer not to immersion, as Christ practiced, but to anointing, as done in ancient Israel for kings and priests. This would completely change the meaning of the act. In Israel, immersion was known also as washing, and what John the Immerser (known as the Baptizer) did referred to immersion for cleansing from sins. The Son of God did the same, but His immersion had greater significance as it not only washed away sins, but also gave hope for the salvation of souls.

In Greek, the statement that immersion is possible through pouring water is logically contradictory, to put it mildly, and more bluntly, I would say it is nonsense. If the text had originally been written in Hebrew, there would also be a contradiction, because in Jewish practices immersion was distinguished from pouring, which was called anointing. It seems highly likely that the passage concerning baptism was composed in Latin and later translated into Greek, and in this way ended up in the 11th-century manuscript.

The entire manuscript was only discovered in 1873 and is dated to the 11th century. In Egypt, three first chapters of Didache were found in a garbage dump, and they are dated to the 4th century, but they do not contain the passage about baptism. Trinity supporters claim that there are manuscripts from the 6th century, but I was unable to confirm this, which would not matter much anyway, since that is still the period after the victory of the Trinity worshippers, when scriptures were almost openly forged.

We could take Didache seriously if there were manuscripts from the period before the Council of Nicaea, because if the supporters of the Trinity were not afraid to falsify the Holy Scriptures, they would be even less hesitant to forge anonymous Didache. There would still be a risk that Didache could have originated among the Gnostics or another heretical sect, because the Trinity appeared very early, but precisely in Gnostic sects.

It is interesting that Trinity supporters like to cite this questionable source, even though officially they do not accept it in other matters. The so-called „Church Fathers” did not regard Didache as trustworthy and we have no reason to believe it either. But since we are on this topic, it is worth checking if there is anything there that might suggest something contrary to the Trinity. According to the principle that forgery is rarely perfect and something usually escapes the forgers. I found there something that seems more consistent with the New Testament and the true principle according to which we should be immersed, something that confirms the early texts of Eusebius. See for yourself, reader:

“Let no one eat or drink from your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for this is exactly what the Lord meant when he said: ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs.’”

If the forger had been consistent, they should have also changed this passage by inserting a new formula, otherwise we have a situation where the Eucharist may be taken by someone who has not been baptized in the name of the Father and the Spirit, but may not be taken by someone who has not been baptized in the name of the Lord. Which means that only immersion in the Name of the Son matters. This lack of consistency shows that the forger did not act comprehensively but selectively. They wanted to add the Trinity formula and focus on the form of baptism by pouring, so they concentrated only on that detail, ignoring other places.

This second passage can therefore be considered important evidence indicating what correct immersion is about, that it should be in the name of Yeshu. Why do I accept this passage but not the previous one? Because this text survived despite the several hundred years of censorship conducted by the Trinity worshippers, and this should be considered divine providence or, as some say, the Holy Spirit’s watchfulness over the truth. Didache is not among the writings recognized as inspired, but it is material that shows us what the Trinity worshippers would like to hide. This second passage is completely consistent with the New Testament, which I will write more about if the Lord permits, discussing internal evidence.

Justin Martyr

Another witness is Justin Martyr. Here are some excerpts on the name from his work Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. I provide them without changing the name Jesus to Yeshu, keep this in mind.

“Since God himself announced the New Covenant, which was to be established and become a light for the nations, we see and are convinced that people come closer to God, abandoning their idols and other acts of unrighteousness in the name of the one who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and remain in his confession until death, and preserve piety.”

“Therefore, only because of these seven thousand did God not pour out his wrath, and even now he has not executed justice, nor does he execute it, knowing,”that every day some of you become disciples in the name of Christ and, abandoning the path of error, receive gifts, each according to their merits, enlightened by the name of that same Christ.”

“As a result, we also are strong in faith and in this teaching, because we derive this conviction both from the prophets and from those whom one can find throughout the world, who are worshippers of God in the name of that one crucified.”

“For every demon, when expelled in the name of that true Son of God – who is the Firstborn of all creation, who from the Virgin became man, who suffered and was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, who died, and who rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven – is subjected and defeated.”

“The more such things happen, the more others, in even greater numbers, accept the faith and become worshippers of God in the name of Jesus.”

“We, who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God, the Creator of all, have been stripped in the name of the Firstborn Son of our dirty garments, that is, from our sins, and seized by the violent flame of the word of His call, we are the true Priestly People of God,”

“But those dirty garments, which you have placed on all who in the name of Jesus became Christians, God reveals will be taken off us when He raises all people from the dead and shows some as indestructible and immortal, free from sorrow in the eternal and imperishable kingdom, and sends the rest to the punishment of eternal fire.”

Nowhere in Dialogue with the Jew Trypho is there anything referring to baptism in the name of “Father and Son and Spirit” nor anything at all that could be considered a phrase typical of a Trinity believer. And the selected phrases I quoted above point to the great importance of the name of the Son of God, not any Trinity. Justin explains to Trypho that Christ represents God and always did so even while in heaven. According to Justin, it was He who came as God to converse with Moses and Abraham. There is a whole argument here showing that the name of our Lord was previously foretold and that he himself is subject to the Father. There is therefore no question of any equality between the Father and the Son. Unfortunately, Justin does not quote Matthew 28:19. It is valuable to us mainly because he devotes much attention to the name of Our Lord Yeshu.

It is worse with Justin’s Apology. There one can already find formulations that could be taken as close to Trinity worshippers. Of course the word Trinity does not appear; Justin very clearly emphasizes that the Son is lesser than the Father and the Spirit is lesser than the Son. But there is a passage describing immersion in water with the formula in the name of “Father and Son and Spirit.”

“Then we lead them to a place where there is water, and there they receive rebirth in the same way we ourselves were reborn, namely, they are immersed in water in the name of God the Father and Lord of all, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior, and in the name of the Holy Spirit.”

Supporters of the Trinity very readily cite this passage, forgetting to add that Justin very precisely describes this Holy Spirit, asserting that it is the same Spirit who previously inspired the prophets to utter prophecies concerning Christ. According to the messenger Peter, it was the spirit belonging to Christ:

“They inquired when and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating, which prophesied the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”

1 Peter 1:11

If we take this into account as well as the fact that Christ received a name that formerly belonged to the Father, for previously the Savior was God the Father, then baptism in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit is baptism in the same name. Such a conclusion arises when we read Justin’s Apology carefully. Christ prayed to the Father giving thanks for the name He received:

“Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them, I kept them in Your name, which You have given Me, and guarded them,”and none of them perished except the son of perdition, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled”

John 17:11,12

So, the name Yeshu, which literally means Savior, was at the same time the name of the Father that the Son received, so it was the name of the Son and it was also the name of the Holy Spirit, who informed the prophets about Christ, because this Spirit was Christ in a pre-human state. Reasoning in this way, we could accept this formula without recognizing the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we do not do this for a simple reason: there is too much evidence confirming that the baptismal formula „in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Spirit” is not true.

We know that the texts were falsified during the lives of the writers and sometimes 100 years after their deaths, but in this case, that is, in the matter of Justin’s Apology, we are dealing with a gap of over 1000 years before the first complete text of the Apology appears. It should be noted that it was the first and only text. Justin wrote the Apology around the year 160 AD, and we have only one manuscript, and that from the year 1363. Now, if we had such a huge gap between the creation of the New Testament and the first manuscript, then 100% of us would worship the Trinity today, because we would not have the materials needed to detect the forgeries made during this time on the Holy Scripture. In the case of the Apology, we have nothing to compare, and it is impossible to establish the true content of this book.

Quote from the introduction to the Apology by Fr. Leszek Misiarczyk:

“Justin’s Apologies have reached our times through only one manuscript, the so-called Parisinus 450, which is kept in the National Library in Paris and dates from 1363 (or 1364). The text itself is sometimes difficult to read, contains many gaps, scribal errors, and glosses, but it remains the only complete manuscript, which formed the basis for later editions of Justin’s texts.”

For this reason, we have justified reasons to doubt the value of this manuscript in matters important to the church. If there is something truly valuable there, it will certainly be something overlooked by the censors. Something that escaped their attention. I am sure that any manuscript that would prove deviation from Christ was long hidden or irretrievably destroyed. People were silenced by burning at the stake, so why would the writings be spared? Today, we can only examine what has been deemed harmless. Fortunately, or maybe I should say thanks to God, we have enough information to discover the truth.

Article from 7th December 2014
Author: Krzysztof Król