Matthew, the former tax collector. James, son of Alphaeus. Thaddaeus, Judas the son of James. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.
Boyd is in quite a hurry to sweep church history under the rug in order to get on with his multi-explanations of what "in the Name of" could mean. He unilaterally declares that there is not "one shred of evidence" over the introduction of a new baptismal formula in church history.
He remarks that the early church "quibbled" about a good many issues, but the use of the Trinitarian formula was not one of them. Amazing how all these raging Godhead debates and Councils have now been reduced to a "quibble. Cyprian insisted that "heretics" who were baptized in Jesus Name be rebaptized in the Trinity.
Cyprian set off a controversy that drew in others. Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia wrote Cyprian and quoted Pope Stephen as saying that anyone baptized in "the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ. The Pope stubbornly insisted that baptism in the name of Christ did indeed remit sin.
I think an argument that involves these Bishops, on three continents over a number of years and results in a decision from the See of Rome; certainly qualifies as 'Shred" of evidence that there was some ": Apparently the debate was quite ongoing.
The author concluded his presentation with the statement: The Council of Constantinople condemned "Sabellian" baptism as they called it and in addition to the "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" the practice of "one immersion into the death of Christ" was outlawed and the triple immersion in the Trinity was declared the only valid one.
It certainly seems that "two formulas" are locked in battle -- one "in Jesus Name," the other in the name of the Trinity: Why was all this passed over so hastily, if we can be that charitable, by Dr. Could it be that the next most logical question to arise would be which formula was the first one?
And as Trinitarians have long realized, the answer to that question is fatal to their contention. The earliest witness we have after the close of the Apostolic writings which are all unanimous on the Jesus Name formula is the "Epistle to the Corinthians" by Clement of Rome. This is the next generation after the Apostle John, and what does Clement say of the baptismal formula?
He refers to it in these words: It was written in Rome by an unknown individual. It was recognized in some churches as scripture and read aloud during the service.
Here it is baptism in Jesus Name again and again. He speaks of being worthy "to bear his name" Sim. It refers to Baptism in this manner: That this was a latter mutilation of the text is substantiated by the fact that "pouring" was a much later Catholic innovation.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states that perhaps chapter 7: It isn't until the time of Justin Martyr that we begin to see another formula, a Triune one, creeping in. In the Second and Third Centuries the two formulas are in use even as they are today.
But it is quite obvious which one is "the new kid on the block. And that is precisely the reason why unprejudiced scholars and church historians, which we previously cited, are in agreement with our position. Peake says in Bible Commentary: Instead of the words, 'baptizing them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' we should probably read simply 'into my Name' " p.
Early baptism was in the name of Christ" Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. He was a voluminous writer and compiled the earliest history of the ancient Christian Church. He had access to New Testament manuscripts that are much older than the ones we now have.
Thus he had the advantage of being much closer to the original writing of Matthew Yet he never quoted it in the Triune formula, but in all his citations which number eighteen or more he renders the text as: In his library, Eusebius must have handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest uncials that we now have in our libraries.
Westcott says it is owing to the zeal of Eusebius that we know most of what is known of the history of the New Testament.
Certainly, as a witness, he cannot be ignored.Hebrews Main Page. The Accession of Solomon.
Judas Maccabaeus. The Final Dispersion. Great Jewish Revolt One. Great Jewish Revolt Two. The persecution of Christians can be historically traced from the first century of the Christian era to the present day.
Early Christians were persecuted for their faith at the hands of both a small number of Jews from whose religion Christianity arose and the Romans who controlled many of the lands across which early Christianity was spread.
Early in the fourth century, a form of the religion. This is a summary of The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. ).Ibn Warraq has provided a valuable collection of some of the most important critical studies of the Koran over the past century.
Regarding your last paragraph, I have forgotten the details surrounding that. So I decided to re-read some materials. I have summarized an alternative possibility regarding the tension between the gospels regarding the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and thought it may just another side of the coin.
This study is to reveal the origins of numerous aspects in the Tanak, Hebrew Bible, of the patriarchal Indo-European elements incorporated into the text from the perspective of the deities, gods and goddesses, which many translators mask in their English translations.
An ancient Christian magical spell or charm from the sixth century has been found in an old papyrus manuscript housed at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.
The discoverer, Dr. Roberta Mazza, believes the Greek charm, originally unearthed in Egypt, was part of an amulet to be worn or carried as protection, as reported [ ].