In the previous installment, we began discussing the history of the Stone of Destiny and its relationship with the Throne of David. In this second installment, we will continue with astonishing claims in this regard.

1. Wallace Connon wrote in “The Stone of Destiny,” cp. 1951:

“Tradition identifies this stone with the one upon which Jacob rested his head at Bethel… Jacob’s sons carried it to Egypt, and from thence it passed to Spain with King Garthelus, son of Cecops, the builder of Athens.  About 700 B.C., it appears in Ireland… there it was placed upon the sacred hill of Tara, and called ‘Lia-Fail, the ‘fatal’ stone, or ‘stone of destiny’… Fergus II (d. 501), the founder of the Scottish monarchy and one of the Blood Royal of Ireland, received it in Scotland, and King Kenneth (d. 860) finally deposited it in the monastery of Scotland (846)… Upon the stone their kings, down to John Baliol, were crowned.

As we will see, the “Stone of Destiny” and its history are closely connected with the history of the “crown” and the Throne of David.

To begin with the “Throne of David” and the “crown,” our free booklet, “The Fall and Rise of Britain and America,” addresses the history and future of the throne of David, stating this:

“The Bible foretells that the throne of David would be overthrown or transferred three times (compare Ezekiel 21:27). And so it happened… it was transferred from Jerusalem to Ireland, then from Ireland to Scotland, and finally from Scotland to England. Today, it is in ENGLAND, from where the Queen [and now King Charles III] rules, sitting on the throne of David, over one of the tribes of Israel (i.e., Ephraim).

In part 1, we looked very briefly at how much the Bible has been influential in the world and how its influence can be noticed today for those with eyes to see.   Let us review some more interesting information that will help us realise how influential the Word of God has been over a long period of time.

On the website: “What Christians Want to Know,” we find more interesting information:

“The Bible is quoted more often than any other piece of literature in history and has had more influence on our language, culture, and laws than any other book or idea ever published. A recent book by the linguist David Crystal, appropriately called Begat: The King James Bible and the English language, counts 257 phrases from the King James Bible in contemporary English idiom. Some of the phrases from the Bible that has become part of our everyday language include [the following quotes are taken or adapted from the Authorized Version]:

It is virtually impossible to fully reflect the influence that the Bible has had on so many nations around the world.   Many books could be written on this subject and still not exhaust the many ways that God’s Word has influenced so many people and nations over a long and sustained period of time.   However, in an increasingly secular and disbelieving world, its contents are ridiculed by many as being irrelevant and out-of-date, but how wrong are they who believe such things.   The Word of God has much to say to those who would mock and ridicule its relevance and veracity. We read in Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Because of the enormity of the subject and to help us achieve this in a relatively brief way, we will quote selectively from different sources to make the point that the Bible has impacted society enormously; much more than we may at first realise.

In the previous three installments, we have shown that the text in Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) is NOT a formula to be uttered by the baptizing minister, and to insist on using these exact words as a formula would be erroneous and unbiblical. We have also investigated the question as to whether this passage is even genuine or whether it was added at a later time, and we left it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Some may respond that the Worldwide Church of God under the late Herbert W. Armstrong [who died in 1986] engaged in the practice of baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and that we must therefore do so as well.

In the first installment, we discussed the fact that Matthew 28:19 does not set forth a “formula,” which must be used when baptizing a person, and that the teaching that the baptizing minister must say the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit,” is erroneous and unbiblical.  At the same time, we pointed out that “the concept stated in Matthew 28:19, in referring during the entire baptism ceremony to the role and function of the Father and Jesus Christ, bestowing on the baptized person the gift of the Holy Spirit, is accurate and biblical.”

In the second installment, we began our discussion as to the genuineness of the passage in Matthew 28:19. We quoted from commentaries and other sources advocating the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, citing ancient authors referring to the threefold trinitarian baptism, saying that Jesus spoke these words. We pointed out that none of those authors actually quoted or directly referred to the book of Matthew as evidence for their claim; that nowhere do we read that an author by the end of the first or the beginning of the second century said: “Jesus said in the book of Matthew, at the end of the book, that we are to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” We raised the question as to whether they just referred to some “human tradition,” according to which Jesus allegedly stated these words, and that the suspicion, then, that these words were later added in order to confirm the “Christian” practice and belief, as did happen in the case of 1 John 5:7-8, ought to be addressed.

In the previous installment, we discussed the fact that Matthew 28:19 does not set forth a “formula,” which must be used when baptizing a person, and that the teaching that the baptizing minister must say the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit,” is erroneous and unbiblical.  At the same time, we pointed out that “the concept stated in Matthew 28:19, in referring during the entire baptism ceremony to the role and function of the Father and Jesus Christ, bestowing on the baptized person the gift of the Holy Spirit, is accurate and biblical.” We did not address the question in the previous installment whether the Scripture itself is genuine or not.

Before addressing this intriguing issue, let us point out that it would not be beyond possibility or comprehension that a “passage” was added by translators or copyists which was not in the original text—or, that a passage which was in the original text was subsequently deleted. God would allow this as He has given His people discerning minds, through His Holy Spirit, to note such rare occasions and to point them out to those who have willing and receptive hearts.

Many mistakenly believe that a proper baptism must include these words, as quoted in the Question above, or similar words such as, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and they base that concept on the Scripture in Matthew 28:19, as rendered in the Authorized Version, using the words “Holy Ghost,” or in the New King James Bible, using the words “Holy Spirit.”

But as we will show in this series, the Bible really does not command us to use those words during the baptism ceremony, and there are many reasons for this.

It should be stated at the outset that Trinitarians see clear evidence for their belief in Matthew 28:19. The Ryrie Study Bible comments: “Here is evidence for the trinity: one God (the name) who subsists in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Each of the three is distinguished from the other; each possesses all the divine attributes; yet the three are one.“

There are two time periods in the books of the former prophets, those books being Joshua to 2 Kings, where groups or sons of the prophets are mentioned. The first was under the prophet Samuel and the second was during the time of Elijah and Elisha.

Considering the time of Samuel, he was the son of Elkanah and Hannah and was conceived miraculously. In fact, the name Samuel means “God has heard,” since he was an answer to Hannah’s prayer. 1 Samuel 1:1 informs us that Elkanah was a resident of the mountains of Ephraim. 1 Chronicles 6, verses 27-28 and 33-34 mention Elkanah and Samuel, listing them as descendants of Kohath, a Levite, but not of the priestly line that descended from Aaron. From this we see that Samuel was a Levite living in the area of Ephraim. The phrase in 1 Samuel 1:1 that Elkanah was “an Ephraimite” is understood as saying that he lived there or that he was born there and belonged, according to his  “civil standing” to the tribe of Ephraim; not, that he was by origin a descendant of Ephraim. He was also a prophet and a judge.

Following on from the previous two instalments of this series, we continue to review and respond to the antinomianism arguments set forth by the adherents of this belief system, claiming that the law is dead; look at where some who don’t espouse this “understanding” can go wrong; and come to the biblical conclusion on the matter.

Edgar Andrews is another supporter of antinomianism. He wrote: “As regards sanctification, the law can be accorded no special place today in the life of the believer, that is, no place over and above [his emphasis] the rest of Scripture. To suggest that the ten commandments are in some special way the Christian’s rule of life does an injustice to the whole body of New Testament teaching on Christian conduct.” Commenting on Galatians 5:18, he writes: “Had Paul intended to teach that the law, or any part of it, should be the Christian’s rule of life, here was his opportunity to do so. What does he say? He tells us that those led by the Spirit are not beholden to the law with respect to righteous living. Indeed, he seems to go further; being led by the Spirit and being ruled by the law are mutually exclusive in the area of Christian conduct” (compare Welwyn Commentary on Galatians).