Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr

Ratings:

3.2

(5)
|Views: 533 |Likes:
Published by acts2and38
Even Justin Martyr was leery of the switch, as he clearly shows in his writings, as the first recorded ‘trinitarian’ baptism mode on historical record, in the year 140 AD, still carried the ‘NAME OF JESUS’, as a carryover from the original Acts 2:38 mode. History is replete with the statements that the vast majority of the proverbial Christians in the first 3 centuries AD were Acts 2:38-Jesus Name adherents. Their numbers were so large that the proverbial ‘popes’ of the day admitted that baptism in Jesus name was valid (Stephen of the 300’s and Zachery of the 700’s.Justin Martyr introduced a concept unheard of among earlier Christians, namely that Jesus Christ was “in the second place” to the Father. Second place?? What did he mean by that? NOBODY had EVER suggested that Jesus was in second place to the Father. What could this statement suggest?
Even Justin Martyr was leery of the switch, as he clearly shows in his writings, as the first recorded ‘trinitarian’ baptism mode on historical record, in the year 140 AD, still carried the ‘NAME OF JESUS’, as a carryover from the original Acts 2:38 mode. History is replete with the statements that the vast majority of the proverbial Christians in the first 3 centuries AD were Acts 2:38-Jesus Name adherents. Their numbers were so large that the proverbial ‘popes’ of the day admitted that baptism in Jesus name was valid (Stephen of the 300’s and Zachery of the 700’s.Justin Martyr introduced a concept unheard of among earlier Christians, namely that Jesus Christ was “in the second place” to the Father. Second place?? What did he mean by that? NOBODY had EVER suggested that Jesus was in second place to the Father. What could this statement suggest?

More info:

Published by: acts2and38 on Jul 25, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Justin MartyrHe was the first recorded person to change from the baptismal formula; used by allthe Apostles, the one in Jesus name, (Acts 2:38 formula) to a trinity type. Hisexact words are as follows: "I baptize you in the name of the God the father andthe Lord of all, and of our savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost". As he didnot Jesus was God the father, manifested in the flesh. Even as the Apostlestaught, is the reason behind the change. Now Origen (Philosopher) and Tertillian(Lawyer) became believers via the teachings of Justin Martyr's, change thebaptismal formula to just in Matthew 28:19 today. Now Justin Martyr believed andtaught like the Jews of that time, that the name of God was a mystery and no mancould know it. It was his unbiblical belief that the name of Jesus as beingdifferent from the father's name (Contradiction of John 5:43) and the HolyGhost's, (The spirit was sent in Jesus name.)this laid the foundation for thedifferent trinites, that would later come in the "Christian World".Unknown to most modern Christians, a theological revolution began with the ferventapologetics of a man named Justin Martyr, then preaching and teaching in Rome.Justin Martyr introduced a concept unheard of among earlier Christians, namelythat Jesus Christ was "in the second place" to the Father. Second place?? What didhe mean by that? Nobody had ever suggested that Jesus was in second place to theFather. What could this statement suggest?An understudy of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, added to the confusion, stating that"the Son of God became the Son of Man." This was a completely new concept, thatinstead of Jesus being the incarnation of the Father, He was only the incarnationof an eternal Son. This was never before taught in the first 150 years of theearly church. None of the Apostles ever made a statement of that kind. Thomascalled Him, "My Lord, and my God!" For a Jew, that meant that Thomas believed Hewas the Father in the flesh.The suggestion was that Jesus was an eternal son - an impossible concept. Thinkabout it. How can anyone be an eternal son? Sonship, by definition, requires abeginning. Jesus became a son when He was born of Mary. Before the son was born ofa virgin, only the Father existed. Here are some source quotes.The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge :‘Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptismafter His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only one baptism in the nameof Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15),which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarianformula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 andJustin, Apol. 1:61…Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula…isstrange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas… the formalauthenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed…’ page 435.” Even Justin Martyr wasleery of the switch, as he clearly shows in his writings, as the first recorded‘trinitarian’ baptism mode on historical record, in the year 140 AD, still carriedthe ‘NAME OF JESUS’, as a carryover from the original Acts 2:38 mode.CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8 “Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of theRoman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name ofJesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA—Volume 1 pages 392, 393, 396.“the formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given inMatthew 28:19, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost’ But it is curious that the words are not given in any description ofChristian baptism until the time of Justin Martyr; and there, they are notrepeated exactly, but in a slightly extended and explanatory form. In everyaccount of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formulais in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost “in the Nameof Jesus” (Acts 2:38), and the same formula was used at the baptism of Corneliusand those that were with him (Acts 10:48). Indeed it would appear to have been theusual one, from St Paul’s question to the Corinthians: “Were ye baptized into thename of Paul?” (I Corinthians 1:13). The Samaritans were baptized “into the name
 
of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16); and the same formula was used in the case of thedisciples at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-5)....Others think that the full formula wasalways used and that narratives in the book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistlesare merely brief summaries of what took place; an idea rather difficult to believein the absence of any single reference to the longer formula The evidence to showthat the formula given by St Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming;but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogetherdie out, or, if it did, that it was revived. The historian Socrates informs usthat some of the more extreme Arians “corrected” baptism by using the Name ofChrist only in the formula. “The practice of using the shorter formula existed inthe 5th. and 6th. Centuries, at all events in the East”Page 396. “No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts of the Epistles oftheApostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the Day of Pentecostareadministered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the LordJesus”(8:16), “into Christ” (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27). This difficulty was consideredby theFathers.”HISTORY OF CHRISTANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE—A.C. McGiffert, Scribners, 1901, page61.…”of the trinitarian formula, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the HolyGhost, which later became universal in the Church, we have no trace in the NewTestament, except in the single passage, (Matthew 28:19). It is difficult tosuppose that it was employed in the early days with which we are here concerned;for it involves a conception of the nature of the rite which was entirely foreignto the thought of the primitive Christians, and indeed no less foreign to thethought of. When and how the formula arose, we do not know.”HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389.“The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of thetrinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history,Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr,when the trinity formula was used. Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38,“Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name ofsome person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus namebecame his personal property, “Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23. So as sourcessay, there was a obvious change by Justin. And it was not until he did this thatthe change became accepted, and later adopted as teaching.ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA—1910, 11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366Page 361 “The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used fromthe beginning, nor did they always go together. The teachings of the Apostlesindeed prescribes baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but onthe next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord—thenormal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century, baptism in the name ofChrist was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian ofGarthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (ep.x) we learn that theCeltic missionaries in Baptizing omitted one or more persons of the trinity, andthis was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; PopeNicholas, however (858867), allowed baptism to be valid (Tantum in nimineChristi),as in Acts.Ursinus, an African Monk A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name ofChrist alone was valid. The formula of Rome is; “I baptize thee in the name of theFather, and Son, and holy Spirit”Page 366 No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles ofthe Apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the day ofPentecost were administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into thename of the Lord Jesus” (8:16) “into Christ” (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). This

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
acts2and38 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->