Posts

Showing posts from 2016

My Collection from A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

by:  Clinton D. Willis The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view.  If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and  the triune formula is a later addition ."   Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28: "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form  expanded by the [Catholic] church ."   The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: "It is oft