Matthew 28:19 kjv commentary: the Felony Forgery that deceived the world

Home

---

About us and contact us
Blog
Free Biblical Downloads
Roman Catholic church lies revealed!
Glossaries & Commentaries
Jesus Christ, the red thread of the bible
LGBTQ
nostr: a simple, open protocol that enables global, decentralized, and censorship-resistant social media.
qortal.org: a new decentralized, uncensored internet!
Trinity Center
Bold Christian t shirts!
Unique & Powerful Teachings
Watch the New BBP YouTube channel!

View this page in 103 different languages!

12 Felony Forgeries against Jesus Christ in the bible



Teaching outline:

1. Introduction
   
   
2. What does the Hebrew gospel of Matthew and 4 early church fathers say?
   
   
3. What do multiple objective authorities say?
   
   
4. Follow the Apocryphal Chain of Corruption!
   
   
5. Follow the Apocryphal Chain of Corruption flowchart
   
   
6. The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 contradicts all other forms of baptism!
   
   
7. 14 Point Summary
   
   

INTRODUCTION

Here is the first of an entire series of youtube videos on the shield of the trinity: deciphered and exposed.

Shield of the trinity: deciphered and exposed article









Matthew 28:19 [KJV]
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

This is perhaps the most well-known verse related to the trinity and a baptismal formula.

One of the ways the bible interprets itself is that all verses on a given subject must agree with each other. For example, if you have 100 verses on subject x, they all must be in alignment and harmony with each other. If 5 of those verses seem to contradict the other 95 verses, then you must research the minority of confusing or contradicting verses and see how they fit in with the majority.



This is what the bible calls handling the word of God deceitfully – not being honest, consistent or logical in your dealing with various scriptures.

II Corinthians 4
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

What does the Hebrew gospel of Matthew say?

Matthew 28:19-20 [KJV]
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Definition of observe
ob·serve [uhb-zurv]
verb (used with object), ob·served, ob·serv·ing.
1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.
2. to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question.

3. to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.
4. to state by way of comment; remark: He observed frequently that clerks were not as courteous as they used to be.

5. to keep or maintain in one's action, conduct, etc.: You must observe quiet.
6. to obey, comply with, or conform to: to observe laws.

7. to show regard for by some appropriate procedure, ceremony, etc.: to observe Palm Sunday.
8. to perform duly or solemnize (ceremonies, rites, etc.).

9. to note or inspect closely for an omen or sign of future events.

The rest of the entire new testament is packed full of many, many different people carrying out the first part of Jesus' command in verse 19, to “teach all nations”, yet there are no verses in the bible anywhere that anybody ever carried out the second part of Jesus' command in verse 19, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.



That is very odd to say the least.

Canonically [Genesis - Revelation], this is the first forgery in our study of 12 Felony Forgeries against Jesus Christ in the new testament. It is the oldest one because all the words in this verse occur in every existing biblical manuscript with the exception of one. The oldest texts only go back to the 4th century, at which time the doctrine of the trinity had only recently become established.

If a person resorts to committing the 2 felony crimes of forgery and fraud in order to prove a point, their point is invalid.



How do we know this?



The Harvard Theological Review > Vol. 81, No. 1, Jan., 1988 > A Note on the Short ending of Matthew 28:19
JSTOR [Journal Storage] on Matthew 28:19

So Eusebius must have had access to older manuscripts that did not have the odd, added words.

Furthermore, the following 4 church writers never quoted the current, traditional version of Matthew 28:19.

1. Aphrahat of Nisibis [3rd century]
2. Eusebius
3. Hermas [before Eusebius]
4. Justin Martyr [before Eusebius]
5. So we have a total of 4 early church writers/historians who never quoted the later corrupted version of Matthew 28:19!

Earlier, I mentioned that there is one manuscript that does read differently than the rest: it's the Hebrew gospel of Matthew.






Note the assessment of Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in the preface by George Howard, Professor Emeritus, Department of Religion, Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, University of Georgia.

After many research studies, he believed that it came from sources that predate any known existing biblical manuscript!

That is the grace of God protecting the integrity and precision of his word.







Definition of polemics:
[puh-lem-iks, poh-]
noun, (used with a singular verb)
1. the art or practice of disputation or controversy: a master of polemics.
2. the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.

Definition of tradent:
noun
Chiefly in Rabbinic Jewish contexts: a person who hands down or transmits [especially oral] tradition.

Origin
Early 17th century (in an earlier sense). From classical Latin trādēns, trādent-, present participle of trādere to hand over, deliver.



As a matter of fact, you can even buy this Hebrew version of Matthew on Amazon, [on 4-10-2023 it was $298.99, but the price has varied quite a bit over the years; 3 years ago, it was almost $1,000!!!]



You can also get Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew at Mercer University press for only $40 [as of 4-10-2023!!].




It's remarkable how God can still preserve the truth of his word, despite all of Satan's efforts to the contrary!

What do multiple objective authorities say about the forgery of Matthew 28:19?

The Harvard Theological Review > Vol. 81, No. 1, Jan., 1988 > A Note on the Short ending of Matthew 28:19
JSTOR [Journal Storage] on Matthew 28:19

In addition, there are many scholars who believe Matthew 28:19 has been deliberately altered.

1. 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 the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism. The same Encylopedia 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."
   
   
2. Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
   "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot 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."
   
   
3. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I page 275:
   "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
   
   
4. Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
   "The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptism formula [in the name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
   
   
5. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
   The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic church in the second century."
   
   
6. Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
   "The trinity...is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch [c A.D. 180],...[The term Trinity] is not found in scripture..."
   
   "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying.
   
   Finally, Eusebius's form of the [ancient] text ["in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity] has certain advocates. [Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew], this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the [Trinitarian] formula as derived from early [Catholic] Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage [cf Didache 7:1-4], and a brief summary of the [Catholic] Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit..."
   
   
7. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, page 435:
   "Jesus, however, cannot have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his resurrection, for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus [Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3; I Corinthians 1:13-15], which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula only occurs in Matthew 28:19, and then only again [in the] Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...
   
   Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas...the formal authenticity of Matthew 28:19 must be disputed..."
   
   
8. The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
   "It may be that this formula, [Triune Matthew 28:19] so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the [man-made] liturgical usage established later in the primitive [Catholic] community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus"..."
   
   
9. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, under "Baptism", says:
   "Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and it Trinitarian formula [is] foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
   
   
10. The New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
    "Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later [Catholic church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts [or any other book of the bible], is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
    
    No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text [In My Name] by the ecclesiastical [Catholic Trinitarian] formula of baptism, so that "transcriptional evidence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
    
    But it is unnecessary to discus this point at length, because even if the ordinary [modern trinity] text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
    
    Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm this statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the [Catholic Trinitarian] formula of the church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the [Catholic tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late [non-scriptural Creed] and unhistorical.
    
    Neither in the third gospel not in Acts is there any reference to the [Catholic Trinitarian] Matthean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of [Catholic Trinitarian] Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized [early] Christian practice.
    
    Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be the universal [and original] practice. That it was so confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
    
    Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus, the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism.
    
    Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus, but later changed to the Trinity baptism.
    
    "1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine [Trinity] formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist [communion] the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript, the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
    
    
11. The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
    The Lord's Command to Baptize an Historical Critical Investigation, by Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27: "The passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord."
    
    Also we find, "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of Obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional view is this the short christological [Jesus Name] formula was [the] original, and the longer trine formula was a later development."
    
    
12. A History of the Christian Church:
    1953 by Williston Walker, former professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95, we see the historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples, generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ." There is no mention of baptism in the name of the trinity in the new testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, [but not the original] however. It underlies the Apostles Creed, and the practice recorded [*or interpolated] in the Teaching, [or in the Didache] and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen [254-257]."
    
    

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original

long list of scholars who believe that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is false

Follow the Apocryphal Chain of Corruption

The trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 must have come from the Didache, [pronounced di-day-kay] an apocryphal writing from the late 1st century or early part of the second century!

Look at this screenshot from the Didache itself!




Look at this line by line, word by word comparison of Matthew 28:19 to the Didache, chapter 7, verse 1! [best viewed on a laptop or desktop computer]

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
...thus, having first rehearsed all these things, baptize, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: in running water.
Didache chapter 7, verse 1.



This could not have been an accident or coincidence, but was in fact, a very precise pre-meditated attack against God's word by a corruption of the biblical text.

It is obvious, however, that the one who committed forgery and fraud against Matthew 28:19 left out some of the words in the Didache.

Why?

Because if somebody added all of verse 1, or the rest of chapter 7 that explains the whole man-made baptism practice, the obviousness of the forgery would be too apparent, and thus it would lose credibility and effectiveness.

Definition of cherry-pick from the urban dictionary

World English Dictionary— vb
(tr) to choose or take the best or most profitable of (a number of things), esp for one's own benefit or gain: cherry-pick the best routes.

See Urban Dictionary also;

So the person who corrupted Matthew 28:19 cherry-picked just the right words they thought would be most persuasive. They only chose certain words that they thought would not tip off the reader that a forgery was actually being committed. They picked the most religious sounding phrase out of all 4 verses in order to introduce the trinity into scripture.



Most scholars believe that the Didache was written somewhere between 80AD and 120AD. By the time the Apostle Paul wrote II Timothy around 67 or 68 AD, which was near the end of his ministry, the 1st-century church was already in decline and ruin.

II Timothy I:15
This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

II Timothy II
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker [gangrene]: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

II Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

6 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

II Timothy 4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.



Analysis of the Didache
“This is a translation of an apocryphal text, the Didache, or the 'two ways,' a set of ethical precepts attributed to the original apostles. In the introduction, Hoole presents evidence that it was derived from other apocryphal works, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas.

However, modern scholars are certain that the Didache dates to the late first or early second century. It was considered canonical by some of the Church Fathers. It was eventually rejected from the canon, but is still considered part of the collection of Apostolic Fathers by the Catholic Church. The text was lost, but was rediscovered in 1873 in a Greek Codex written in 1075 and published along with other texts in 1883.

As such it represents a window into a very early Christianity, including information on rituals such as baptism, and the itinerant ministry of the time”.--J.B. Hare, Jan. 3, 2010.

You can see the damage that apocryphal texts have done to Christianity in this flowchart called:

The Apocryphal Chain of Corruption flowchart

Definition of Apocrypha
a·poc·ry·pha [uh-pok-ruh-fuh]
noun (often used with a singular verb)
1. (initial capital letter) a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.
2. various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
3. writings, statements, etc., of doubtful authorship or authenticity. Compare canon 1 (defs 6, 7, 9).

Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English < Late Latin < Greek, neuter plural of apókryphos hidden, unknown, spurious, equivalent to apokryph- (base of apokrýptein to hide away; see apo-, crypt) + -os adj. Suffix


Now let’s examine the definition of the word “spurious”
spu·ri·ous [spyoor-ee-uhs]
adjective
1. not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.
2. Biology – (of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure.
3. of illegitimate birth; bastard.

Look at that! The definition of the name alone [apocrypha] already proves:

• It is of uncertain origin
• It is of doubtful authorship or authenticity
• It is a counterfeit
• It is not true
• It is not authentic
• It is not genuine
• It is not from the proper source

For more information, see the apocrypha
The fact that the didache mentions 2 ways in the first chapter, first verse is very interesting indeed.
“1:1 There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways”. The rest of the document expounds upon the difference, but my point is the 2 ways mentioned in the bible – God's ways and man's ways.

The bible is God's way. The didache is man's way. It was not authored or inspired by God, but was the idea of men.

Galatians 1
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The didache is, in fact, another gospel, another way, which Paul warned us about. See Is the book of Mormon another gospel?

Isaiah 55
6 Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Wikipedia - the Didache
Description
“Willy Rordorf considered the first five chapters as "essentially Jewish, but the Christian community was able to use it" by adding the "evangelical section".[16] "Lord" in the Didache is reserved usually for "Lord God", while Jesus is called "the servant" of the Father (9:2f.; 10:2f.).[17] Baptism was practised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[18]



A similarity with Acts 3 is noted by Aaron Milavec: both see Jesus as "the servant (pais)[20] of God".[21] The community is presented as "awaiting the kingdom from the Father as entirely a future event".[21]”

Acts 3:13 describes Jesus as παῖς: "a boy [as often beaten with impunity], or [by analogy] a girl, and (generally) a child; specifically a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God): – child, maid (-en), (man) servant, son, young man" Strong's G3817



Chapter 7, verse one says: “Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, "baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," in running water”, yet chapter 9, verse 5 says: “But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptised in the Lord's Name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."




The true word of God never contradicts itself. As the wikipedia article indicates, chapter 9, verse 5 represents the older, original command of Jesus to baptise in his name, while chapter 7, verse 1, is the newer, man-made corruption of the biblical text.

As I've said before, this is arguably Satan's most effective strategy: to mix lies in with the truth. That way, you gain credibility with the truth, while slipping in lies that ride on, and thus, take on the same credibility as the truth. That way Satan can slowly, subtly corrupt the truth over time so that the lies become the accepted truth in the minds of people.

Consistent with the definition, an apocryphal writing, such as the Didache, has an anonymous author. Some scholars believe that it was written by several different and unknown authors. This damages its credibility.

No one really knows who wrote it, how many wrote it, when exactly it was written, nor why. The bible already has clear and simple instructions on baptism, so why write something contradictory? Because it causes confusion and division amongst the Christians. This also hinders evangelism of the word of God. That's what the devil wants.

Proverbs 6
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

James 3
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

This is the effect, the fruit, of apocryphal works.

There are other problems with the added, man-made formula of baptism in Matthew 28:19 as well.

The man-made baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is unique in Scripture, contradicting all other forms of baptism in the bible

• it contradicts water baptism in the gospels
• it contradicts being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in the book of Acts
• it contradicts being baptized into Jesus' death [Romans 6 & Galatians 3]
• it contradicts Jesus Christ's baptizing in holy spirit and fire in future judgment

Here is a more detailed comparison of the various forms of baptism in the bible. As you can see, the word “baptize” and it's variations, are used 59 times in the bible and never in the old testament. Therefore, all these verses must be in harmony with each other in God's true word.

search result on www.biblegateway.com for "baptize"

There are different ways to baptize in the bible, depending on which biblical administration was in place at the time. A biblical administration is a period of time in which certain truths and principles are in effect during that era. In the gospels, where they were still under the old testament laws [since Jesus hadn't finished fulfilling the law yet during his ministry], they baptized in water. This was initiated by John the baptist.

Matthew 3
1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

John baptized with water and all other verses in the bible on that subject are in agreement with each other.



[For more information, see The Holy Ghost Forgeries]

Jesus Christ will baptize with holy spirit and with fire, which is a figure of speech called hendiadys.

Definition of Hendiadys
World English Dictionary
noun
A rhetorical device by which two nouns joined by a conjunction, usually and, are used instead of a noun and a modifier, as in to run with fear and haste instead of to run with fearful haste
[C16: from Medieval Latin, changed from Greek phrase hen dia duoin, literally: one through two]

According to E.W. Bullinger's book, figures of speech used in the bible, page 662:

“The “fire” in verse 11 is different from the “fire” in verse 12.

In verse 11, it is a figure for purifying and cleansing;

In verse 12, it is a literal fire that is meant. But the effect of it's operations are the same in each case."

In Matthew 3, John's water baptism is contrasted with the baptism that Jesus Christ carries out, which is judgment. This was foretold by the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 4
3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:
4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.
We must remember that Isaiah, the rest of the old testament and all 4 gospels are written directly to Israel, and as such, are written for us to learn from, but it does not directly apply to us. [see the lord's prayer vs Ephesians].

So far, we've seen John's water baptism and Jesus Christ's baptism with holy spirit and fire, which pertains to Israel, which is future judgment.

In Acts 2:1-4, we have the record of the day of Pentecost, which happened in the spring of 28AD. That was the very first time it was possible to be born again of God's spirit. It was the beginning of a new biblical administration, the age of grace. As a result, in the book of Acts, there emerged a new form of baptism.

Acts 1
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.



As you can see in verse 5, the word “the” right before the phrase “Holy Ghost” is in brackets, which indicates that it was added by the translators. The words “Holy Ghost” are the Greek words hagion pneuma, which is translated holy spirit in the Greek text.

Since it's referring to the gift of holy spirit we receive when we get born again, holy spirit should be spelled with lower case letters.

The only time “Holy Spirit” should be capitalized is if it is referring to God himself, the creator of the universe.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 11:16
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.



So we should not build a doctrine around the one contradictory verse, ignoring the 6 simple, clear verses as most of us have done. We need to research the one odd verse more and see how it fits in with the majority.

Definition of baptize
Strong's Concordance #907
baptizó: to dip, sink
Part of Speech: Verb
Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo)
Definition: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.

HELPS Word-studies
907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle").

This definition of baptism becomes very important in the book of Romans on the concept of baptism. When we get born again, we are baptized with the gift of holy spirit.

Romans 6
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Galatians 3
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Remember, to baptize means to submerge, to dip under. Where did Jesus Christ go when he died? The grave. He went 6 feet under, as the saying goes. He was submerged under the ground. 3 days and nights later, he was raised from the dead. He did this so we could walk in newness of life. That is our spiritual baptism.

So the baptism that we are baptized with in the age of grace has nothing to do with the odd baptism formula in Matthew 28:19 either.



The example of the devil deliberately mis-quoting verses [adding, subtracting & changing words] functions as a warning, an example to serious bible students to be aware, be alert, to Satan's tricks and deceptions.

God knew in his foreknowledge that Satan would corrupt Matthew 28:19, so perhaps that is the real reason why the devil's example of forgery in Matthew 4 comes before the actual corruption of the text in Matthew 28.

II Corinthians 2:11
Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices [thoughts, plans, schemes].

So with all those changes, you no longer have the original word of God left. It's similar to the word of God, but not identical to it, and that's the whole point. To the untrained ear, it sounds real religious. It sounds right. Yet it's dead wrong.



In the book of Genesis, Eve brought the fall of man onto all mankind by doing the exact same thing the devil did in this example in Matthew 4: adding, subtracting and changing words of God into a religious doctrine of men that brought disastrous consequences to all mankind. Look what God says about changing the words of God.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Revelation 22
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So back to the forgery of Matthew 28:19. Somebody obviously and deliberately mis-quoted a religious, counterfeit, apocryphal and false secular writing [the didache] and added those words to the bible to corrupt it. But this is nothing new. Even before the apostle Paul died, he was already aware of counterfeit religious writings during his own ministry.

II Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Verse 2 is the key – AS from us... that refers to counterfeit books, letters, writings, etc like it was from the apostle Paul, or other Godly leaders, but was not. It does not say they were from us, but AS from us.

The usage of the word “as” indicates that it is like something from Paul, but it wasn't. If it was like it, but was not actually it, then it is a counterfeit, and therefore, it had to originate from Satan.

The usage of the word "as" is the figure of speech simile.
Definition of simile
British Dictionary definitions for simile
noun
1. a figure of speech that expresses the resemblance of one thing to another of a different category, usually introduced by as or like Compare metaphor Word Origin
C14: from Latin simile something similar, from similis like
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012



In verse 2, the word spirit is referring to devil spirits that possess people unawares. Then that person starts teaching false doctrines, and finally, when these teachings are spoken and practiced long enough, somebody writes them down into an official doctrine.

That is the proper order of words in verse 2 - spirit, word, letter. Devil spirits inspire false prophets to teach false words that are written down and become false doctrines.

That's exactly what happened with the Didache: devil spirits influenced an unknown, anonymous writer or writers to speak things that contradicted God's word. This infiltrated and saturated the culture with false beliefs, leading to wrong baptismal practices in a society that was turning away from God and his word.

Over time, this was written down as wrong doctrine that ultimately led to the corruption of the bible. Once in scripture, it has become one of the biblical and doctrinal foundations of the trinity and baptismal practices for centuries.

II Corinthians 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

In addition, there are many scholars who believe Matthew 28:19 has been deliberately altered.

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original

long list of scholars who believe that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is false

Finally, let's look at the true context of Matthew 28 and the entire book. The root word “baptize” [or any variation thereof], are not used even one time in the previous 7 chapters!

The root word “baptize” is only used 10 times in the entire book of Matthew [not including Matthew 28:19], whereas the word “disciple” or it's variations, are used 72 times in the book of Matthew.

“Disciple” is used 11 times in chapter 26, twice in chapter 27 and 5 times in chapter 28 [7 times if you include 2 times from the more accurate Eusebian quote]. Thus, the immediate and remote context of the last chapter in Matthew, after Jesus' resurrection, is discipleship, not baptism.

Here is the usage of the word "disciple" or "disciples" in the end of each gospel after Jesus' resurrection:

• Matthew: 7 times
• Mark: 1 time
• Luke: 1 time
• John: 21 times
• Total: 30 times
• Baptize Total: once in all 4 gospels
• Thus, the overwhelming context of Jesus' ministry in his resurrected body was discipleship, not baptism

Summary

1. The baptismal section of Matthew 28:19 is unique in scripture and contradicts all other verses on baptism in the bible
   
   
2. The disciples carried out Jesus' commandment to teach all nations, but there are no records in the entire bible of anybody ever obeying the command to baptize anybody at any time in any place for any reason in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost
   
   
3. Eusebius, a historian in the third century, quoted Matthew 28:19, 20: as follows: "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 whatsover I have commanded you" from a manuscript he had in his library in Caesarea which was later lost, stolen, or destroyed
   
   
4. 3 other early church fathers [Justin Martyr, Hermas, and Aphrahat] who mentioned Matthew 28:19 never quoted it as it is now
   
   
5. The added words of Matthew 28:19 exactly match words in a counterfeit apocryphal writing called the didache about baptismal practices from the late 1st century or early 2nd century
   
   
6. The added words were cherry-picked from chapter 7, verse one of the didache for maximum effect and are not even a complete verse
   
   
7. There is evidence that the Didache, an apocryphal writing, was actually made from other apocryphal writings
   
   
8. The didache was written at a time when the 1st century church had already been corrupted by many secular, apocryphal writings; all the believers in Asia had turned away from Paul; much of the church leadership had defected to Satan; most, if not all, of the original disciples and apostles had died or been killed or been banished from the church, and thus, the early church fell in decay and it's godly influence was only a fraction of it's former glory
   
   
9. The didache even contradicts itself on the practice of baptism
   
   
10. Many scholars after the first century believe that the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 was added to the bible and was not part of the original text. Some experts even say that it was the Roman Catholic church who committed the forgery in the second century AD.
    
    
11. The Hebrew gospel of Matthew from the second century AD does not have the trinitarian baptismal formula and can be purchased on www.amazon.com
    
    
12. II Thessalonians 2, written in approximately 53AD, mentions false writings that appear to be from the apostles, but were not. This could include the didache writings.
    
    
13. Matthew 28:19 was forged by a partial quote of one verse from a secular source. The book of Matthew is also the same book that has an example of the devil deliberately mis-quoting a partial verse to Jesus in an attempt to deceive him.
    
    
14. The word "baptize" or it's variations are accurately used only once in scripture when Jesus was in his resurrected body. However, the word "disciple" or "disciples" are used 30 times in the exact same period of time. Thus, the overwhelming and dominant context of Jesus' ministry in his resurrected body was discipleship, not baptism