The 2819 Project (Part 2) | Ep. 168

There seems to be a discrepancy between Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and the apostles' consistent practice of baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ" throughout the book of Acts.

This compelling episode dives deep into this fascinating enigma, examining what Jesus truly meant when addressing His disciples before ascending to heaven. Through careful biblical analysis, we explore the possibility that Jesus wasn't dictating specific words to say during baptism but rather instructing His followers on what to do with proper spiritual authority. If the disciples who walked with Jesus himself baptized differently than many churches practice today, shouldn't we take notice?

The significance of the name of Jesus emerges as a central theme throughout scripture. From Old Testament declarations that "the name of the Lord is a strong tower" to Peter's bold assertion that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved," we trace how the power and authority in Jesus' name was understood and applied by early believers.

We also examine fascinating historical evidence showing how baptismal practices evolved over the first few centuries of Christianity, culminating in formalized changes at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This raises profound questions about whether modern practices reflect apostolic teaching or later theological developments.

Whether you've been baptized, are considering baptism, or simply want to deepen your understanding of biblical practices, this episode will challenge you to look beyond tradition to the patterns established by Jesus and His apostles. Study the scriptures for yourself and let the primary source material guide your understanding rather than merely accepting inherited traditions.

Chapters

• 0:00 The Vision of Blood Cells
• 0:45 Was Jesus telling us what to say or what to do?
• 5:56 The significance of the Name
• 11:13 What the Apostles Actually Did
• 31:04 Biblical Evidence for Jesus' Name
• 43:10 Historical Development of Baptismal Formulas

Transcript

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 0:04

The vision received was that of blood cells traveling throughout the body, supplying the much-needed oxygen and other nutrients to the differing members of the body to fulfill their purpose. Once the blood cells are spent, they must return back to the heart to be refilled before being sent out again and fulfill their purpose and fulfill their purpose. So let me see if I may be of some service to you. The question that we should ask ourselves in regards to 2819, Matthew 28:19, is this, "Was Jesus telling them what they should say or was he telling them what they should do? I want you to think about that for a moment before we go any further In Matthew 28, 19,. Let me repeat it one more time so you can get the point that I'm trying to make Was Jesus trying to tell them what they should say, or was He telling them what they should do? Let's try to be logical. Let's think this out through. Think about these two questions of what are the ramifications? If Matthew recorded what He said, Jesus said in order to tell us what to say, then all believers in the body of Christ have an empirical problem in their faith. Because the disciples who became apostles and ministered the kingdom of God after the ascension of Jesus, all of them disobeyed Jesus. Now, I've just shared with you all of the relevant, clear, and explicit examples of how one was baptized in the first century to say and we have clear-cut evidence that demonstrates that not even the apostles obeyed Him then this faith that we all confess we believe in, is effectively in vain. You see, the evidence of this contradiction is as clear as the sun is bright in the sky on a cloudless day at noontime. If Jesus was telling us what to say in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles, disciples who heard him give directions at the first, second, third and every opportunity given to them to adhere to that instruction, they all disobeyed and did it differently. Why are we believing this faith? Because they're effectively demonstrating that they could do things the way that they want to, rather than what was instructed to them. If. If it is the case that he was telling us what to say. However, maybe we misunderstood, maybe Jesus was not telling them what to say in Matthew 28 19. But rather he was telling them what to do. If that is the case, then the dilemma, this apparent conflict, is effectively resolved. The disciples turned apostles in the first century, did obey Jesus and continued the work of the kingdom properly, as testified by the scriptures in Acts, which is Luke's historical account, tracking the acts of the Spirit of Jesus in and through his apostles. It's very simple when you just think of it in that way. One way we basically condemn ourselves and all the rest of Christianity because none of them, at least from the first century on, if you just follow the rest of the disciples who became apostles none of them did what he said to say. But if they did what he said to do, then we have no issues.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 5:35

Now, if these testimonies weren't enough for your consideration, I would like to give you more scriptural support on why we should be pronouncing and declaring the name of Jesus in baptism. If it's not clear to you by now, remember I said earlier the name there must be some real significance or importance, because they're all saying in the name, in my name, in His name, the name. So the significance of His name is of utmost importance and I want to show you that from the old covenant to the new, whether you interpret it literally as the saying of His name, or you interpret it as the name referring to calling on the presence of Yahweh, and Jesus is Yahweh incarnate. Look at what it says about the name in the Old Covenant, and I'm not going to give you all of them, I'm just going to give you a certain segment to show you that the name is so important.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 6:40

In Proverbs 18:10, it says the name of the Lord is a strong tower and the righteous run into it and are safe. It says in Psalm 79:9, help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name, and deliver us and a pride, atonement for our sins for your name's sake, atonement for our sins for your namesake. In Joel 2:32, chapter 2, verse 32, which is what was referred to by Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts, chapter 2. And it says and it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And it says further for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the remnant whom the Lord calls. It says in Malachi 1, verse 11. It's a song that we actually sing now that I think about it, for from the rising of the sun to the sun goes down, it says let the name of the Lord be praised. That's the song. But it says here for from the rising of the sun even to its going down, my name shall be great among the Gentiles. In every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering for my name shall be great among the nations says the Lord of hosts.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 8:16

So there's no question that having the name of the Lord is incredibly important, whatever that name is, because name is not a name. It's saying that there's a name, there's something that someone is called, there's a name for that person. And so let's go right into the new covenant, Matthew 1:21. And she will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for He will save his people from what? From their sins. Oh, wow, the angel brought forth a message, because that's what an angel is a messenger. And he says his name, this son that you're going to bring forth, his name is called Jesus and he's going to save his people from their sins. So the name of the son that saves his people from their sins, which we just read in the Old Testatment. That's what the Lord does saving his people, providing atonement for their sins, for the glory of his name, for his name's sake, that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. His name is Jesus.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 9:36

Now I'm going to go to the red letters. Not that I think there's anything more important, but just so you know that Jesus said in John 5: 43, I have come. This is when he was an adult. I have come in my Father's name. Ah, so the Son, his name is Jesus. The Son says, hey, I come in my Father's name, of which Matthew 12: 21 quotes the Old Covenant, and says and in his name, Gentiles will trust. Remember those scriptures. The Gentiles are going to be saved in his name. And then we have John 14: 26. But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things that I said to you. So we've got three scriptures, interestingly enough, where the Son has a name. His name is Jesus. The Son says he comes in the Father's name, of which we already identified his name is Jesus. The Son says he comes in the Father's name, of which we already identified his name is Jesus. The Son's name is Jesus and he comes in his Father's name. And then the Holy Spirit will be sent, the Helper, and the Father will send him in my name. Wow, the name of the Lord is incredibly important.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 11:08

And so now we think about what Luke said again, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. And Luke, Luke 24: 47 dovetails right into Acts, chapter two, because it's the same author continuing the same account to show Theophilus how this progression, movement of Jesus and His kingdom continued on. It says then Peter said to them repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. For what? The remission of sins. And then I didn't bring up these other ones before, but these are as important. They're not examples of baptism, but it's just communicating to us the importance and the significance of his name. It says in Acts 4:12, again written by Luke, Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. Man, you can't escape salvation and the name of Jesus being intertwined. Let's read Philippians 2, verses 9 through 11. It says that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, the significance and the magnificence and the majesty and the power of his name is incredibly important.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 13:02

Let's go back to Acts, chapter 3. Remember when Peter this was after Pentecost remember when Peter was preaching in the synagogues and he came across someone that was infirmed or sick or he couldn't walk. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he couldn't walk. And he came by him and he says Peter said to him hey, silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. And then he was walking and leaping and praising God. Walking and leaping and praising God, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. That's an old children's song. I mean, I'm telling you scriptures, just they start coming to me in songs all the time. Think about that.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 13:53

And then, as Peter recounts what took place and what happened, he wants to remind everyone about this healing that just took place. He says in Acts 3:16, 10 verses later and in his name, through faith in his name, this man was made strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which comes through him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all, incredible, telling you, guys, if you do further research in the scriptures, you'll not be disappointed. Questions will be answered definitively, convincingly. If the Spirit of God is leading you as you are reading and studying the Scriptures, you will come to conclusions that are accepted and believed on by the rest of the brethren, even if the rest of the brethren happen to be the minority. Yes, I said the minority. Because baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is now today the majority, it's not the minority. Most religious organizations baptize in that way Because they're following a particular organization or religious group that began that and we'll talk about that soon enough.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 15:29

But let me close out, because I've been sticking to the Scriptures all this time, and I always do. I think, if you recognize I don't bear out, I don't journey outside the Scriptures very often, but when I do, I always start with the scriptures because I believe we need to get our foundation laid by the scriptures and not outside the scriptures, by people outside our understanding, and a bedrock of our foundation should come through the scriptures. So let me read one more to you. Consider Colossians 3, verse 17. Paul said Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, the, the Father through him, brothers and sisters, all those of you that are listening, there is no scripture that shows anyone being baptized by saying in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 16:48

Everyone in the first century who followed Jesus and adhered to the doctrine of his apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. There was no shame in it. It actually was a testimony to all the Jews of Jerusalem and Samaria that Jesus, Yahweh incarnate, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, had come as the Messiah and was crucified on the cross for their sins and he rose again on the third day. Brothers and sisters, for me, the scriptural evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of declaring, decreeing and speaking the name of Jesus at baptism, in contrast to in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the name of Jesus at baptism in contrast to in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, of which I have absolutely no scriptural evidence to share with you. That in and of itself should squash the 2819 project, because it has clearly it has no scriptural foundation on which to stand.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 18:23

It's only when you leave the security of the scriptures that false ideologies and practices arise. Even accepting the record, as Matthew stated, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we see that the word Father, well, that's not a name, that's a title. And neither is the word Son. That's not a name, that's a title. We don't call someone Father, we don't call someone Son or Holy Spirit. That's a title. Who is it referring to? These are not names, these are titles referring to God, who was revealed to his children in the old covenant by the name of Yahweh and has now, in the incarnation, revealed a new name to his children in the new covenant. That is the name of Jesus or Yeshua.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 19:14

As you can see, up to this point, I have tried to emphasize and focus on primary source material. That's what I call it. That's not even what I call it. That's what's called. When you do research, you try you should always go to primary source material, meaning the biblical record itself. If we're doing you know, biblical studies, when you engage in biblical research, the original record, that's primary source material, meaning the Gospels, the letters of the New Covenant, the books of the Bible in the Old Covenant, the Torah, or some call it the Tanakh. That would be original source material, because it's records of those closest to the event or the person or the issue that you're studying. That should be your starting point.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 20:06

You begin with primary source material and you analyze it and you interpret it to gain deeper understanding of the subject matter you're studying. That's what we've done and I encourage you don't take my word for it. Study it yourself. Confirm the things that I've shared with you are true regarding the biblical testimonies that I've shared thus far. I encourage you to do that on your own. I'm not afraid to find it. You contact me later and say, oh, you found something different, go ahead and bring it. Go ahead and bring it. I feel the same way as I did when I made the podcast. I think it was episode 100 about I do believe dot, dot, dot, dot in the Trinity, and I'm going to leave that there. So if you want to go back and listen to that podcast, because it's very similar to this one.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 21:07

I stick to primary source material and coming to my conclusions, but once you have completed your analysis of primary source material, you then might continue looking into secondary and tertiary research, in other words, materials that others have created based upon their research of the topic, because you're not the first to look into primary source material and come up with some understandings. Now, those understandings that you come up with, if you start writing about them or sharing with them, that becomes secondary material, secondary research material or tertiary research material, because it may have been. You know, you came up with something after you looked at primary source material and secondary source material and some people might call it then it's tertiary or third research material. But in biblical research, this is where we it can get, where it can open deeper levels of understanding. You know, looking at what others have said or it could get dicey, it could get confusing, and for early on in my faith walk, that hesitancy was healthy no-transcript and you become grounded in the Word and the Word is your foundation, the primary source material and the correct interpretation and understanding of that. You can then listen to what other people might be saying and then, as a Berean, you look to the scriptures and you study to see if the things that are said are true. Same thing happened to Paul.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 23:24

So I want us to remember what John said, John the Apostle, concerning those that would try to deceive you. He said in 1 John 2: 27,. He said the anointing which you have received from him abides in you and you don't need that anyone teach you. But as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, and just as it is taught you, you will abide in him, the anointing is going to teach us all things and the anointing is none other than the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ, or the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit is the essence of God, it's who he is, it's God he's going to teach you and if you have a humble heart and you're hungry and you're thirsty and you want to gain deeper understanding, he will lead you and guide you to help you better understand His kingdom. So, firstly, we remember the anointing will teach us all things.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 24:33

Secondly, I want you to always keep in mind that primary research should supersede all secondary and tertiary research, especially I mean, obviously, when it conflicts with the explicit statements found in the scriptures, the primary source material. Now, as we research more deeply and we consider sometimes secondary research, tertiary research, we should always be praying Lord, show me your truth, give me a witness, accompanied with your peace, and develop in me discernment to distinguish between truth and error. I'm humble enough to recognize that I might have areas of ignorance, blind spots that I'm not aware of, and I trust that you will reveal them to me and not allow me to be led astray when I'm sincerely desiring your understanding and your truth. So, in beginning this next section of further research, I want us to acknowledge God in all our ways and then confidently go forward trusting in him. What some of us listening to this may or may not know is that Matthew 28, 19 is branded by the Roman Catholic Church as the Trinitarian formula. Today it is considered the normal and expected way to baptize.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 26:09

According to Roman Catholic historical scholars, the early textual and historical evidence indicates that this idea, this Trinitarian formula, developed over time Because, admittedly, they admit, baptism was not originally done in this manner. So, remembering the scriptures that I have already shared, it was clearly done in the name of Jesus and that is substantiated by all primary source material, namely the New Covenant scriptures, specifically the Gospels and Acts. Now other scholars, such as EC Whitaker he traced the historical emergence of this Trinitarian formula and he acknowledges that it did not begin this way. It became the standard gradually. He admitted that Acts and some texts that were outside the Scriptures, in other words some other writings that were outside of what we consider today the Bible, also confirm that baptism in the name of Jesus was actually the standard and that this declaration was common in the earliest communities of the first century. In other words, this is how they did it in the first century they baptized in the name of Jesus.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 27:31

There are other scholars like LF Miller and Everett Ferguson that document that by the early 2nd century which means between 100 and 200 AD so now we're talking about 100 years after the apostles had already died baptismal rite began to be standardized in a different manner than how the original apostles practiced. Why? Because during the 100 and 200 AD on into 300 AD, there was this growing theological emphasis of the Trinity, ecclesiastical unity and catechetical structure. Things were changing, things were being modified. Another scholar, du Asue I may be pronouncing that wrong, forgive me A-S-U-E, that's the last name he documents in his analysis that this shift to formalize the Trinitarian formula okay, over what I would call the original apostolic formula, carried about by the chosen apostles of Jesus Christ and those who abided in the apostles' doctrine of the first century. He says that the shift to formalize this Trinitarian formula was close to its completion by the late second and early third century, that's almost 200 years after all the apostles had already died.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 29:05

This development and shift culminated in the endorsement of the Nicene Council in 325 AD by those that later became known as Roman Catholics. What happened in the Nicene Council established a contrary theological framework, not only for baptism but also for the understanding of the Godhead and Yahweh incarnate. There was a revolutionary change that happened at the Nicene Council that was contrary to apostolic doctrine, in other words, the teachings of the apostles who were directly instructed by Jesus himself. So in this next set of information, of secondary research, I start with this information because I want us all to understand that even the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges and admits that they deviated from the scriptures to establish their own doctrine, their own new set of practices and their new codified set of beliefs, even though they were blatantly contrary to the apostles of Jesus Christ and what they practiced and what they taught. They don't apologize for it. Apologize for it. Today, they continue their traditions over and above the word of God.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 31:05

Reminds me, Jesus made this remark about the Pharisees because they made. The Pharisees made the same mistake in other areas that what I just declared the Roman Catholic Church admittedly, self-admittedly, did. Why did they make these mistakes? Because the principle of error and pride, in other words, the spirit of error and pride, remain the same. But Jesus said of the Pharisees in Mark 7, verse 9, he said to them all too well, you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. Furthermore, he said in verse 13 of the same chapter of Mark 7, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition, which you have handed down, and many such things you do See, in my humble opinion, the Roman Catholic Church is just as guilty as the Pharisees in this regard. You know, I thought of something else. Jesus also said it to the Pharisees in Matthew, or he said about them, because he didn't say to the Pharisees, he said about them. He said in Matthew 23, 2, the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses's seat. Pharisees sit in Moses' seat If you've done any due diligence on your part and looked into the history of the Roman Catholic Church during the Roman Catholic Church's rise to power.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 32:45

Like the Pharisees who put themselves in the seat of Moses and his authority in the Old Covenant, the Roman Catholic Church displaced the Apostles from their seat of authority i n the New Covenant. The apostles were replaced with popes and cardinals and bishops and other doctrines in their place, and they went so far as to say that Peter was the first pope. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. Let me take that back. I take that back, I'm not sorry. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is what the Roman Catholic Church has done, and there are many you may not be aware of who recognize this as nothing other than a spiritual coup d'etat. That's that French word for overthrow of a government. You see, the Roman Catholic Church endeavored to overthrow the apostles and institute their own chosen people in positions of power and influence, and it has continued to thrive in this manner for the last 1,700 years.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 33:59

But most people don't know this because most people don't know church history. Furthermore, most people don't know the Bible, because I didn't start with secondary research today. I started with primary research. When you look into secondary research after you've fully considered primary research, you will detect errors and you will detect truth, because you are fully persuaded and convinced of the truth by the truth. But right now, because I've based this teaching exclusively on primary source material for direction on this new covenant walk with our God, I'm still taking the time now to show this other, non-canonical material you know, other stuff that's outside the Bible to show that the internal evidence, meaning the primary source material, happens to also be confirmed by external evidence, in other words, secondary, tertiary research material, even though the secondary and tertiary sources are against the doctrine and practice of the apostles. Amazing, amazing. Now, brothers and sisters, as for me, I am ultimately convinced by the primary resources from the Bible alone.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 35:31

I know there are some others that sometimes need a little bit more, and so I'm sharing this information so that you can continue your research and your due diligence and so that you can be fully persuaded in your own mind to trust God's Word in the first place. Trust those whom he chose to continue the ministry of His kingdom before he ascended into the heavens. After all, through Paul, the Word of God also declares the following it says in Ephesians 2, verses 19-20, Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. You have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Apostles meaning the new covenant, apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, and the prophets meaning the old covenant prophets, and then it puts them together, ties them and intertwines them together, saying Jesus Christ himself is the chief cornerstone.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 36:38

There's a little bit more information I'd like to share with you, but before I do that, I want to make it perfectly clear I accept 2819 as it's recorded. Matthew 2819, I accept it as it's recorded. It, in my opinion, needs no modification, because I don't take one verse for scripture to discern doctrine. I don't look at that one verse and, oh, I'm going to extrapolate and create a doctrine. No, I looked at all the evidence and I put them together so that I can see properly the whole mosaic picture of what's going on. I didn't take a small detail and a small detail and that's it. I looked at all the details and put them together to see how they align together, because in Christ there is no confusion, there is no Babel, there is no darkness, there is no lie. I look at multiple primary sources to help understand the full doctrine, in this case concerning baptism. However, if you research this, you will find the following bit of information that you may or may not be aware of, and I remember I think I ran into this years ago and I you know, for this particular podcast. I just kind of looked it up again, so let me share it. Some scholars I say some because it's a minority some scholars think that Matthew 28: 19 was either added or modified to become what we have accepted it to be in the present day, in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, before I get, why do I say some scholars say that. Let me admit the four reasons why it's there. Okay, these are the reasons why scholars believe yes, it should be there. Basically that, yes, this is a valid writing of Matthew that he wrote in Matthew 20: 19.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 38:43

Manuscripts are important. Manuscripts are the original documents that were used, that were found, that recorded what the biblical writers had said. So the phrase in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit appears in every known Greek manuscript of Matthew. I'll be right up front. It says that in every Greek manuscript of Matthew that we have, that we are aware of, okay, including the oldest one. The oldest manuscript that we have of Matthew was a parchment that was given a name Codex Sinaiticus, and there's another manuscript that was given the name Codex Vaticanus.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 39:31

But these manuscripts of Matthew 28: 19 were from the 4th century, in other words, between 300 and 400 AD. There are no manuscript variations that omit the Trinitarian formula. Okay, so the people that are for that, yes, it should be there. This is some of their reasonings why and I have a little thing I want to highlight here because I think it's important that the manuscripts that they have that are the oldest regarding Matthew and specific 28:19, are found in the 4th century. I'm going to come back to that a little bit later, but I'm just highlighting there. But that's why they believe that it should be there, because all of the manuscripts have that phraseology.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 40:16

Then you look at secondary research and you see that early Church Fathers quoted or paraphrase this verse with the Trinitarian wording of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Didache has it. Tertullian defends the Trinitarian Baptism, but this was in 200 AD. So this is again a hundred years after the apostles had already died, and they cited this verse. Okay, and this formula if you look at it historically and it's developed it became the standard liturgical phrase in Christian baptism rites. That's another reason why they say, oh yeah, it should be there. That's a valid thing, because we see that in the Christian baptism rites of the early centuries of first, second, third and fourth century Actually not even the first, because the first had a different thing altogether and then they also consider that, yes, it should be there, because Matthew's theological style frequently uses triads and the structures involving Father, son and Spirit. So they have no quibble, they have no qualm that yes, it should be there.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 41:30

So let me give you some of the reasons why some scholars and I say some because I think it's a minority, it's some say ah, we got some questions about it. There was a man named Eusebius. He lived between 260 and 340 AD, again 150 years after the apostles had already died. We have this man named Eusebius who frequently quotes Matthew 20 and 19, but he omitted often the Trinitarian formula and instead of writing in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, he says go and make disciples of all nations in my name. Why would he do that? I don't know If it's valid and if it's correct, maybe because he just didn't want to write that whole phraseology and he just said in my name because he understood what it meant. I don't know. So, because there's some record from secondary research material, this has led some to argue that the original wording was simply in my name and the Trinitarian formula was a later liturgical addition. Then they have a little caveat that says but Eusebius also quotes the full Trinitarian version at least once, and possibly after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Hmm, that's interesting to note. Okay, we're going to have to come back to that as well later. So there's many documents that show that Eusebius doesn't quote in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, he just says in my name. And then there is a quote where he fully quotes the Trinitarian version, but that was possibly after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD Again, 200 years after the apostles had already died. Interesting. So one of the other reasons that they're against this is that there just seems to be a lack of this Trinitarian language elsewhere. And that goes back to my primary source material. Nowhere in the Old Testament.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 43:41

Is there any evidence that this Trinitarian formula was ever used in baptism? Acts 2.38, repent and every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10.48, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I didn't even bring this one up. Romans, chapter 6, verse 3, when it talks about what is the reason and the purpose for baptism giving a deeper knowledge and understanding of baptism. Paul was explaining we're baptized into Christ Jesus. He doesn't even say we were baptized into the name of the Father, son and the Holy Spirit, christ Jesus. No, he says baptized into Christ Jesus. You can see that for yourself.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 44:19

And then scholars argue that this suggests that the early church primarily baptized in the name of Jesus. They did not use the Trinitarian formula. And then some people argue that the phrasing is too polished and liturgical for Jesus's typical speech. He just didn't talk. Jesus himself didn't talk that way. So it suggests that maybe there was a later edit inserting and aligning this emerging Trinitarian theology and we keep running into that tree within the 300s but that it seems to be parallel along with that that the method of baptism became this Trinitarian formula because they readily recognize it didn't start that way. So it says here the formal doctrine of the Trinity wasn't articulated. Listen, listen very carefully. The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today and it's been changed, tweaked a little bit here and there, but the formal doctrine was established, was codified, if you will, in 325 AD in the Nicene Council. And so some argue that the formula reflects this more developed theology that would have not been present in the first century Palestine, because this theology of the Trinity was not, was not in first century Palestine.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 46:10

So, in summary, there's two positions, scholarly positions. You have the conservative scholars on one side, which I think it's kind of funny. I'll explain that in a second. You have the conservative scholars that argue that the overwhelming manuscript and patristic evidence supports the authenticity of in the name of Father, son and the Holy Spirit, and they explain why Eusebius' shorter quotes as just being paraphrases or abbreviations, because no one really knows why he wouldn't just write the whole thing Okay. And I find it funny that they say conservative scholars argue for keeping this the way it's written. Yet when we think of conservative, we think of conservative means you keep it the way that it originally was Conserve Progressives want to change, want to modify, want to reframe, want to restate it in a different way for progress sake. So that's just an oxymoron that the conservative scholar want to argue that they should keep it the changed way rather than the original way. Okay, so that's just my little you know. Add on there. But then they say the second scholarly position, which is the critical scholars, critical to the authenticity of in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit. They believe that it originated as a baptismal liturgy that the early church developed and then they retroactively placed it in Jesus' lips in Matthew. Again, there's no proof that this happened.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 47:50

Now there's another interesting note that I think should be added to this, and I think I said this earlier the earliest manuscripts of Matthew come from the 3rd century. Now many of those manuscripts are in fragments, meaning that the whole of Matthew as we know it today was not in that manuscript. That fragment that came from the third century, meaning in the 200s. They have pieces of Matthew. Actually, the oldest piece of Matthew that we have only has Matthew chapter 1, verses 1 through 9, and then it has verse 12, and then it has verse 14 through 20. That's the oldest parchment that we have, and then over time we have different parchments that we, I guess, over time we've kind of come together to realize oh, this is the whole letter that Matthew wrote.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 48:55

And so in my research, I found the following piece of information, and I highlight it here because it's interesting to note and be aware of the earliest manuscript of the verse Matthew 28 19, is found in two Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and both of those date near the middle of the fourth century. For those of you that have a hard time figuring out what the fourth century, that means between 325 and 350 AD, do we have the earliest manuscript of the verse Matthew 28: 19 in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? I find that rather convenient, guys, that the only manuscript that has in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28: 19, the oldest manuscript, happens to be after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Coincidence, I'll let you decide. You be the judge of that.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 50:19

As for me, the internal evidence is sufficient. Be critical of those who want to move or remove landmarks in the name of progress or enlightenment, if it conflicts with the explicit statements found in the scripture, the primary source material, then recognize the wile of the devil and be on the alert. He's up to something, the devil, and be on the alert. He's up to something and I guarantee you that whatever he's up to it will not be good for us. Let's not fall like Eve did in questioning the Word of God, nor ignore its many testimonies.

j - Jesus M. Ruiz: 51:03

I echo Paul's sentiments when he said testimonies. I echo Paul's sentiments when he said indeed, let God be true, but every man a liar. Amen. If you were blessed and appreciate listening to this podcast and you would like to support us in our efforts, consider lifting us up in prayer first. Then remember these four social media buzzwords share, like, subscribe or follow. Share this podcast link with someone else by text, email or word of mouth in the hopes that they might be uplifted, as you were Like by leaving a positive rating or review with whomever you listen to our podcast, with Subscribe to support the show monetarily with the link in our podcast description. Follow us on all our social media platforms. May God bless you and make you prosperous in Him, as you listen and obey His voice.