Doesn't Matthew 28:19 prove God is Triune?

[paarsurrey]

It was interpolated.
This verse is found *only *in copies of Matthew which date from the fourth century. By this time, the doctrine of the trinity was well-established and confirmed at Nicea and Constantinople.

Hi

I endorse your view.

Thanks

 

[holdencaulfield]

How do non-Trinitarians interpret this passage? For me, unless this verse was interpolated into the Gospel, there is no way that the Trinitarian doctrine can be rejected.

It’s in the Old Testament as well, although not as explicit.

 

[rpp]

It was interpolated.

**This verse is found *only ***in copies of Matthew which date from the fourth century. By this time, the doctrine of the trinity was well-established and confirmed at Nicea and Constantinople.

In reference to section that put in bold-face, please provide some citations and links please.

 

[MH84]

It was interpolated.

This verse is found *only *in copies of Matthew which date from the fourth century. By this time, the doctrine of the trinity was well-established and confirmed at Nicea and Constantinople.

You are wrong. I actually started believing what you said. Were you being genuine in your post regarding this verse?

Check out this link: catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp

Here is a sample:

The Didache

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 A.D. 70]).

Note the date in bold.

 

[MH84]

I have suggested to look at this website: apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm.

It contains an apparent quote of the then Cardinal Ratzinger. It seems suspicious, but if true seems to support the belief that Matthew 28:19 may have been a later interpolation, but “true” nonetheless in line with the Faith anyway.

Here’s the quote:

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

 

[Valke2]

For starters, it seems to conflict with the direct commands to baptize in Jesus Name (Acts 10:48; 2:38), what seem to be direct accounts of baptism services in Jesus Name (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), and other “types” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) that all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus by the Apostolic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is also not true. If you believe what Jesus says before the Resurrection, you would believe that He was the Son of God (if not God the Son). Jesus calls Himself the Son of God multiple times.

Matthew 26:
63But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a] the Son of God.” 64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Matthew 27: 42"He saved others," they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ " 44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Mark 3:10For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. 11Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” 12But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was.

Luke 22: 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

John 3:16 16"For** God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son**, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 5:25 I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

(NIV translation) www.biblegateway.com

None of these passages, even taken together, positively requires the interpretation they have in Christian tradition. They are all perfectly compatible with an idea of Jesus as a creature - if a very exalted one. He can be the Son (or son) of God without being remotely equal in status to His Father. Which is presumably why Muslims keep saying as much.​

We might gain a different impression of the status of Jesus if, whenever we saw the words “Son of God”, we read them as “son of God”. The earliest Greek manuscripts don’t distinguish between upper-case & lower, so the adoption of either can imply a theological judgement.

 

[MH84]

None of these passages, even taken together, positively requires the interpretation they have in Christian tradition. They are all perfectly compatible with an idea of Jesus as a creature - if a very exalted one. He can be the Son (or son) of God without being remotely equal in status to His Father. Which is presumably why Muslims keep saying as much.​

We might gain a different impression of the status of Jesus if, whenever we saw the words “Son of God”, we read them as “son of God”. The earliest Greek manuscripts don’t distinguish between upper-case & lower, so the adoption of either can imply a theological judgement.

If you look at the post that I was commenting on, I never said that those passages prove that Jesus is God the Son. But that, at the very least that you would believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Btw, Muslims don’t even believe Jesus is the “Son of God” (whatever weight you choose to put on that title). He is a prophet of Islam and the Jewish Messiah to them.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

If you look at the post that I was commenting on, I never said that those passages prove that Jesus is God the Son. But that, at the very least that you would believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Btw, Muslims don’t even believe Jesus is the “Son of God” (whatever weight you choose to put on that title). He is a prophet of Islam and the Jewish Messiah to them.

The NT says there are a lot of sons of God and lots of messiahs. But THE Son of God is THE Messiah with an everlasting kingdom of David. The top human of all humans all the Jews were waiting for to save them from Gentiles.

2 Samuel 7:13-14 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

But Muslims are scared off from any idea of sons or children of God since with Jesus, Christians put that demigod spin on the meaning.

 

[rpp]

I have suggested to look at this website: apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm.

It contains an apparent quote of the then Cardinal Ratzinger. It seems suspicious, but if true seems to support the belief that Matthew 28:19 may have been a later interpolation, but “true” nonetheless in line with the Faith anyway.

Here’s the quote:

                          Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

This quote is unattributed. That is no work is cited, even on the original website. We only have the author’s word that Cardinal Ratzinger said or wrote this. The occasion or context of this quote is not cited. We have no clue where it comes from and thus cannot validate the author’s assertion.

In fact, nearly everything in the article you linked to is of dubious or unknown origin. If, after a couple of weeks of searching this is all you could find to support this, I think perhaps you should consider the alternative, this this fanciful idea is not accurate.

I also find it curious that a site that has no Catholic teachings, but is filled with Protestant ramblings, of equally dubious validity, would even attribute something that the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[MH84]

This quote is unattributed. That is no work is cited, even on the original website. We only have the author’s word that Cardinal Ratzinger said or wrote this. The occasion or context of this quote is not cited. We have no clue where it comes from and thus cannot validate the author’s assertion.

In fact, nearly everything in the article you linked to is of dubious or unknown origin. If, after a couple of weeks of searching this is all you could find to support this, I think perhaps you should consider the alternative, this this fanciful idea is not accurate.

I also find it curious that a site that has no Catholic teachings, but is filled with Protestant ramblings, of equally dubious validity, would even attribute something that the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Just a couple of points I have not made clear about this:

1. I was pointed out to this website by someone else.
2. I havent been searching for the answer to this thorougly at all. Mainly discussing here at CAF.

 

[inJESUS]

I suppose I can repeat that message I sent to you.

With the baptism of Jesus he received the Holy Spirit and became God’s Word to the people from now on, though just a man.

 

[inJESUS]

I think it is just the active force of God on the world that unites men with God.When you say distinct person, that implies the Spirit has a mind of his own apart from God, which wouldn’t really serve any purpose.

do you believe the Spirit has a mind which is not apart from God?

Then if you are like Jesus in this analogy you will absorb all of that and repeat those words perfectly and become one with me in my spirit and purpose, so you will become my word to the world.

 

[inJESUS]

To the OP, i do not consider the sentence per se as a proof for the Trinity…but when we read that, for example :

Father= Creator
Son = Creator
Spirit= Creator

and that there is only One creator, so Father, His Word, His Spirit is One God.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

how do you reconcile this with John 1, where the Word exists eternally and is the Creator of every creature?

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That’s God’s Word right there. They are His words, not another being with its own mind.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

do you believe the Spirit has a mind which is not apart from God?

It doesn’t have its own mind like another God, it is God’s own power. If that’s what you mean.

Jesus happens to be the Word that created everything…He IS the Word…and since the Word of God is not seperate from God, nor is the Holy Spirit, on what basis do you differentiate between the Word (being created) and the Spirit being the Creative power of God ( not created) when both the Word and Spirit of the Father created everything?

Jesus doesn’t become God’s Word until he gets the Holy Spirit at his baptism and starts speaking it. That’s why we don’t have thirty years of ministry and miracles to read about, only a few.

 

[inJESUS]

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That’s God’s Word right there. They are His words, not another being with its own mind.

i asked for John 1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

**He was in the beginning with God. ** ( not after baptism right? it’s even before taking flesh)

And the **Word became flesh ** and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

All this in the first paragraph of John, the first thing he wrote, long before the baptism.

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

Nothing came to be on this universe without who? The Word who took flesh.

 

[inJESUS]

It doesn’t have its own mind like another God, it is God’s own power. If that’s what you mean.

no i mean : does it have a mind, or is it an impersonal force?

Jesus doesn’t become God’s Word until he gets the Holy Spirit at his baptism and starts speaking it.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

i asked for John 1:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

**He was in the beginning with God. ** ( not after baptism right? it’s even before taking flesh)

And the **Word became flesh ** and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

All this in the first paragraph of John, the first thing he wrote, long before the baptism.

George Bush’s Word is “fight terrorism.” He made Condoleezza Rice the Secretary of State and now she is Bush’s Word to the world, she goes out and repeats his words, “fight terrorism.”

Another way to say it is Bush’s Word was made Rice.

But Bush’s Word is not a little George Bush that turned into Condoleezza Rice. Rice is his spokeswoman, not his incarnation. Her title can be Bush’s Word because she speaks his words, not because she is his words.

Same thing.

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

Nothing came to be on this universe without who? The Word who took flesh.

The words that God spoke, like LET THERE BE LIGHT, LET THE EARTH BRING FORTH ANIMALS, etc.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

no i mean : does it have a mind, or is it an impersonal force?

Neither, it is just God’s force. Like if you sing a love song and it makes people cry, your voice doesn’t have its own mind and it’s not impersonal, it’s just a force coming from you.

the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

In other words, In the beginning He is the Word,and THEN He took flesh…there was no time when the Father was without Word/Wisdom.

God’s Word took flesh here too, and Moses became like God to the people, speaking God’s Word.

Exodus 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

None of that means God transformed into a man. It means instead of speaking His words Himself to the people, they are spoken through the flesh of a prophet.

no, you read about what happened when it “was time” to preach, go to x or z, do miracles, speak publically …there is the time theme to do things, but there is no time when the Father was without word/wisdom for by His Word/Wisdom He created the universe.

It was time to preach after his baptism because that’s when Jesus got the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and after that he started preaching God’s Word. Same way it happens here:

1 Samuel 10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.