„In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” text analysis

Before we start, I’m inviting you to our website yeshu.blog and youtube channel where you can find all the articles and music created by our community for the glory of our Lord Yeshu!

This is a continuation, not a standalone article, so if you have not read the previous part, please do so now – A Closer Look at Mt 28:19 – Textual Criticism Study.

In the previous topic, we showed that Eusebius of Caesarea in his pre-Nicene writings uses the form „in my name,” and after that council, he uses the form „in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.” It is hard to understand why a man of such good reputation as him would consciously change the content of the Holy Scripture. There are several possible explanations: 1) he quotes from copies he has, not noticing the difference due to his very advanced age; 2) he consciously agrees to the forgery to maintain his privileged position; 3) trinity worshipers falsify his writings, which is documented in other cases as methods they used. Why didn’t they falsify earlier writings? Because they were widespread before those in power arrived. Whatever the reason and whoever allowed the forgery will answer before our Lord Yeshu on the judgment day.

Unknown author of De Rebaptismate

Another witness that the formula „in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit” was not known in the mainstream Christian community is the writing „On Re-baptism” (De Rebaptismate) written by an anonymous person in the 3rd century, therefore before the Nicene Council. It repeatedly mentions immersion in the name of Yeshu and how great significance and power that name has, but nowhere do we find the Nicene formula „in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.” This whole writing focuses on immersion (baptism), discusses it in various ways, and the formula is always one: „in the name of Yeshu the Anointed.”

Origen

Origen is an interesting case as a witness in this matter because he was accused of not understanding the current version of the Trinity. Some claim that he did not believe in the Trinity, while others say he only misunderstood it. Well, I can stubbornly agree to the Trinity, that is, that there is God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, but I do not agree that they are equal in that sense—I could be considered a believer in the Trinity who just misunderstands it, and this probably was the case with Origen. This means that if someone wanted to accuse him of not acknowledging the Trinity, they could do so confidently, but if another wanted to claim that he believed but expressed himself poorly, imprecisely, or something like that, they could also find arguments.

Origen, as a writer, was very prolific, and it is believed that most people have not read as much as he wrote. He devoted his whole life to studying the Scriptures and lived from that. When the Trinitarians grew in power and the Unitarians declined, his material existence was threatened. He himself avoided the topic of the Trinity, but unfortunately, using contemporary terminology, his fans were less faithful to the Holy Scripture and bent his teachings, even falsifying his writings. They added to them what, in their opinion, was missing, that is, concepts typical for trinity worshipers. This is no secret since one of them boasted about it. Today, it is no longer possible to establish what Origen himself wrote and what was added by his „defenders.”

A man who admitted to altering Origen’s works was named Rufinus, and he claimed to restore what should have been there since allegedly someone else had removed it. Unfortunately, the alterations were so serious that if we did not know about them, we would have to conclude that Origen did not know what he was writing because contradictory statements occurred openly. There would be nothing unusual if contradictions concerned early writings from youth and later ones, but the problem was that the contradictions are in the same book just a few sentences apart. So, Origen is an atypical witness because he proves falsifications in this matter. An interesting fact is that in De Principiis, which was translated into Latin by the forger Rufinus, there are 19 mentions of the Trinity but not once is the quote from Matthew 28:19 used to support this dogma. Three references to this passage of the gospel are unchanged but only truncated, which, according to researchers, indicates censorship intervention. They end with the statement: „it will be preached among all nations.”

Rufinus, who was Origen’s translator, lived in a time of complete dominance of the worshippers of the divine Trinity, more than 100 years after Origen, so copies of Origen’s works have the same flaw as the translations of the Gospel of Matthew. The copies were made at a time when books were falsified to promote a new Christ. All books that survived after the Council of Nicaea could have been falsified, so our research can only trust manuscripts that were created much earlier, and such are very difficult to find. If we refer to some later manuscripts, it is only because the forgery was not perfect, and despite many efforts, writings preserving the original text survived. It is enough to search for gaps in the lies to know the truth. Certainly, this happened thanks to the Holy Spirit, who ensured that we could verify what is true and what is not, and so that we cannot excuse ourselves by claiming that knowing the truth was impossible because no traces of the truth survived. We have not only indications but strong evidence of changes in the content of Matthew 28:19.

The purpose of our research is to determine what the command given to the anointed followers originally said. However, it cannot be ruled out that there were very early versions of the gospel containing references to the Father, Son, and Spirit in the baptismal formula. As I have already shown in the topic „The Trinity as a Gnostic Heresy,” the word Trinity first appears not among the anointed followers but among the Gnostics; only several decades later do Christians borrow this term, although they still use it in a different meaning than today. The same applies to the baptismal formula. The first mentions appear in discussions with Gnostics, and here we meet another witness, Clement of Alexandria.

Clement of Alexandria

In Polish bookstores, „Extracts from Theodotus” are available. These are fragments of various Gnostic claims authored by Theodotus and collected by Clement of Alexandria. Among these extracts, we also find this: „And the Savior commanded the Apostles: ‘Go and teach, and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’.” It is very likely that just as the word „Trinity” was borrowed from the Gnostics, so the baptismal rule in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit was borrowed from the Valentinian gospel. This claim seems to be confirmed by a quote from Irenaeus of Lyons, who also quotes Matthew in this version while discussing the heretical claims of Gnosticism.

There is still much to say on this topic, so if someone finds such detailed analysis tedious, I invite them to the page „yeshu.blog” where where you find many articles created by or community. Meanwhile, we will return to further discussion of Matthew 28:19 next week, if I live and God permits.

Article from 30th November 2014
Author: Krzysztof Król