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

[1234]

My understanding is as follows:

The earliest writings before the 4th c were on papyrus and exist only in fragments. In the 4th c., people started recording important documents on vellum, which is far more durable. The oldest versions of the gospels, including Matt 28:19 , (the “Great Commission”) are in the codices vaticanus, sinaiticus and byzantinum, of which the first two are the oldest, dating from the 4th c. The reference to the Trinity in the Great commission is described as the Trinitarian Formula.

Although some version of the Great Commission appears in Mark (but not in the earliest versions), Luke and John, and in Acts, no version using the Trinitarian Formula appears in other than Matthew. All other versions refer to baptising in the name of Jesus.

No earlier version of the Trinitarian Formula exists in any form, either on vellum or papyrus. The Magdalen Manuscript, which is papyrus, and is of v. 26 of Matthew, was originally proposed to date from 70 ce or so, but this dating has been debunked, suggesting 200 ce. as the earliest probable date. This verse doesn’t include the Great Commission, anyway.
There are no other earlier versions of the Great Commission using the Trinitarian Formula which I can find. The baptizing in the name of Jesus is widely referred to, but not using the Trinitarian Formula, except in Matthew, in the codices mentioned, which date from the 4th c.

Here is a compendium of arguments against the early origin of the Trinitarian Formula, which I include without commentary. However, the list includes several Catholic sources and one by Cardinal Ratzinger. The Ratzinger attribution has been discussed earlier, apparently. I didn’t research the origin of the Ratzinger quote.

apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

Re the Didache, the only thing I read on it was in wiki, where it states that most scholars date it from the first half of the 2nd c. Didache is not part of the canon, and I didn’t feel obliged to research it, as I didn’t quote from it.

 

[Gara3987]

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.

You can also look at Proverbs 8 : 22-31:
Verse 22. “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.”
23. “I was set up from eternity and of old, before the earth was made.”
24. “The depths were not as yet and I was already conceived: neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out.”
25. “The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth.”
26. “He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the earth.”
27. “When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths.”
28. “When he established the sky above and poised the fountains of waters.”
29. “When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth.”
30. “I was with Him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before Him at all times.”
31. “Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men.”

Joined with this decree was that of his most holy Mother, through whom his Divinity was to enter into the world, becoming man and being born from Her as God and man; therefore it is said: “God possessed me” since both were possessed by his Majesty: for as to his Divinity, He was the possession, the property, and the treasure of the Father without possibility of separation, because Father and Son are One, of the same substance and Divinity with the Holy Ghost; and also as to his humanity, the Father possessed the Son; because He himself knew and decreed the plenitude of grace and glory, which He was to bestow upon it at the moment of its creation and its hypostatical union. Moreover, as this decree and possession was to be brought about by the mediation of the Mother, who was to conceive and bring forth the Word (since He did not decide to create it out of nothing, nor form his soul and body out of any other material), it followed that He possessed Her, who was to give Him the human form. Thus He possessed and claimed Her as his own in the same instant, providing with solicitude, that in the order of grace neither the human race nor any other, should have at any time a right or a part in Her. He alone retained the full right in Her as his portion, and so much his portion as the dignity of Mother required. She alone was to call Him Son, and She alone was to be called Mother, a Mother worthy of having an incarnate God for a Son. Now as all this far surpassed in dignity the whole creation, so did it also take the precedence in the mind of the supreme Creator. Hence He says:

“Before He made anything from the beginning, I was set up from eternity and of old.” We, in our present state, conceive this eternity of God as an interminable time. What were the things “of old,” since none had been created? It is clear that the three Persons are here spoken of, namely, that She was foreseen from the eternal ages of the Divinity, by the Beings, which alone are ancient, namely, the indivisible Trinity (since all the rest, having a beginning, are recent), that She was foreseen when only the ancient Uncreated was, and before any ideals of the future creation were formed. Between these two extremes intervened the ideal of the hypostatic union which was to be verified ad extra through the intervention of the most holy Mary. Both were ordained together, immediately next to God and before any other creature, and it was the most wonderful decree ever passed or ever to be passed. The first and most admirable image in the mind of God, next to the eternal generation, was that of Christ and next to it, that of his Mother.

 

[MH84]

Re the Didache, the only thing I read on it was in wiki, where it states that most scholars date it from the first half of the 2nd c. Didache is not part of the canon, and I didn’t feel obliged to research it, as I didn’t quote from it.

Has anyone heard of a possible later dating of the Didache than around 70AD?

 

[inJESUS]

FaithofAbraham:

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.

wrong analogy. Please stick to:

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

did John say after baptism? is there any mention of baptism? no, he hasn’t even spoken of Him becoming flesh yet… He says : In the beginning… and later on he talks about the incarnation…baptism is way too far.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…

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.

the Word/Wisdom of God does not need be uttered for it to exist. And when John says all things were made through him, he was talking about Jesus, the Word…

 

[Angelos]

Even Jesus’ baptism by John is only ONE of the many manifestations of the Triune Godhead. In the Acts of the Apostles we see people being baptized in Jesus’ name; this is because the fifth book of the NT focuses on the apostolic declaration of Christ Jesus to the mankind. What the apostles, Paul, and many others preached to the world was Jesus. More, the Acts of Apostles relates miracles worked out by the Apostles IN Jesus’ name. Therefore, it is completely normal and natural not to find the Tritinarian baptismal formula in those books. In Matthew, however, the commandment to baptize the nations is delievered in the light of Jesus’ own baptism, which manifests the Triune God clearly.

Peace,
Angelos N.B.

 

[inJESUS]

FaithofAbraham:

Neither, it is just God’s force.

do the scriptures describe it as a force? when the scriptures say the Spirit searches the hearts, guides, speaks, forbids. is blasphemed againt ecc, do you think it is a description of a mindless force?

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.

do scriptures say that at the begining was Moses , he was present at the begining with God and he was God and Moses took flesh and everything was made by Moses?

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.

good but John did not say this about Moses. He said everything was made by Jesus who is at the begining the Word and the Word is God and the Word took flesh and made His dwelling among us…resembles Moses in absolutely nothing in this regard unless you believe everything was made by Moses, the Word and hence Moses and Jesus are one person.

 

[lurdes]

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.

It’s like if I am God in an analogy, everything that gets my post out to you is the Spirit, and the words of my post are God’s Words.

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.

Then if you pass it on to everyone else, they become one with you in the spirit and purpose, and since you are already one with me, all of you become one with me. But there is only one me.

Likewise only one God, and one Jesus with His Spirit and Word perfectly, both together united by the Spirit.

And then everyone else trying to be one with Jesus and God through the Spirit.

You must be a JW only they call the Holy Spirit the active force and so they Baptize in the name of the father the son and the active force of the holy spirit

 

[Angelos]

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.

God’s Word or God’s words you are talking about in your personal interpretation of a passage from the OT?

In the passage you quoted it is apparent that God’s words and Moses are not the same being! Moses becomes only a channel through which God’s words are declared. In the NT, however, the Word does not come and is not attached to a person named Jesus, but human Jesus comes through the eternal Word. In other words, Moses would not stop existing as a human if God had not given him His words, but there would have been no one named Jesus if the eternal Word of God had not taken flesh.

Evangelist John distinguishes Moses and the Law from Jesus when he writes:
1: 17 For the law was given by Moses: **grace and truth **came by Jesus Christ.

Pay attention to the fact that John does not say the Word was given through Jesus, nor that the truth and grace were given to Jesus!

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.

This allegation actually makes no sense since the Holy Spirit came unto Mary before Jesus’ birth! He was born of the Spirit! What you fail to see is that Jesus’ baptism by John did not make him the Christ and Savior, but only declared His personality to Jews for the first time.

Peace,
Angelos N.B.

 

[lurdes]

Also, it is a bad teaching about Jesus having told every one to go and preach to all the world. That is, because in his earlier life, Jesus was very strict in forbidding any preaching to the gentiles. He was a Jew and did not allow his disciples to preach to any non Jew.
How come he would reverse his steps so suddenly. That will not reflect well on his previous teachings. Do we undertsand that Jesus earlier teachings were wrong?? No they were right. But the later ones ascribed to Jesus are not true. They seem to be an added later function.

But still, the new policy could be admitted as true on one ground because he had not made any headway (success) in his own people. He was dismayed and dissatisfied with them so he may have advised friends to go to other people. WE do not know much about it.

you never heard the parable of the good samaritan in Lk 10:30-37

 

[rpp]

You must be a JW only they call the Holy Spirit the active force and so they Baptize in the name of the father the son and the active force of the holy spirit

FaithOfAbraham is a Moslem. As is Planten.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

FaithOfAbraham is a Moslem. As is Planten.

Not really now, I was calling myself one for a while but I have too much against Islam and its doctrines to identify with the religion any longer.

 

[rpp]

Not really now, I was calling myself one for a while but I have too much against Islam and its doctrines to identify with the religion any longer.

Okay. Sorry about that. I certainly meant no offense.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

In other words, Moses would not stop existing as a human if God had not given him His words, but there would have been no one named Jesus if the eternal Word of God had not taken flesh.

Yeah there would, God’s Word “took” flesh precisely because there was a real live man with a human body and spirit for God’s Word to be spoken through. This is called a prophet.

Evangelist John distinguishes Moses and the Law from Jesus when he writes:
1: 17 For the law was given by Moses: **grace and truth **came by Jesus Christ.

Pay attention to the fact that John does not say the Word was given through Jesus, nor that the truth and grace were given to Jesus!

Everything was given to Jesus by God.

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

John 17:7-8 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

This allegation actually makes no sense since the Holy Spirit came unto Mary before Jesus’ birth! He was born of the Spirit! What you fail to see is that Jesus’ baptism by John did not make him the Christ and Savior, but only declared His personality to Jews for the first time.

Peace,
Angelos N.B.

Jesus was created by a miracle of the Spirit. But he got the Spirit as a dove at his baptism.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Okay. Sorry about that. I certainly meant no offense.

It’s ok, I defend the Quran from time to time so it seems I am Muslim, but to Muslims I am a total heretic since I believe in resurrection and things like that, so it doesn’t make sense to call myself one any longer.

 

[1234]

Has anyone heard of a possible later dating of the Didache than around 70AD?

Here’s a link on a good source:

earlychurch.org.uk/article_didache.html

 

[1234]

Here’s a link on a good source:

earlychurch.org.uk/article_didache.html

another group of references, apparently based on a symposium.

didache.info/AaMainDownloadsFree.htm

 

[Angelos]

Yeah there would, God’s Word “took” flesh precisely because there was a real live man with a human body and spirit for God’s Word to be spoken through. This is called a prophet.

Where do you read in John 1 that there was a man named Jesus prior to the Word’s dwelling among people? John does not even talk of Jesus’ miraculous birth in the same context as the Word’s introduction to the world! If you read the whole chapter in John 1, you can clearly see that the Word is the same person as Jesus:

1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

The Greek word used in the verse above refers to Tabernacle, which likens Jesus’ body to the Temple in which God resides.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

According to John, Jesus is the ultimate and supreme revelation, He Himself being the very Wisdom and Word of God.

Everything was given to Jesus by God.

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

John 17:7-8 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

These quotations prove nothing since they are not in the same chapter defining Jesus’ personal oneness with the Word. Actually, those quotations address the Jews who ask Jesus where His authority comes from. The same Jesus also says:

John 14: 8-10 Philip saith to him: Lord, show us the Father; and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

Jesus was created by a miracle of the Spirit. But he got the Spirit as a dove at his baptism.

Not addressing my point at all! So simple and evasive indeed.

Peace,
Angelos N.B.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Where do you read in John 1 that there was a man named Jesus prior to the Word’s dwelling among people? John does not even talk of Jesus’ miraculous birth in the same context as the Word’s introduction to the world! If you read the whole chapter in John 1, you can clearly see that the Word is the same person as Jesus:

1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

The Greek word used in the verse above refers to Tabernacle, which likens Jesus’ body to the Temple in which God resides.

Where do you think the human flesh of Jesus came from? Or his human spirit if you say he is fully man? Both existed as a HUMAN before God’s Word “took” them to dwell with. Which is what a prophet is, a human who gets the Spirit and thus God’s Word.

These quotations prove nothing since they are not in the same chapter defining Jesus’ personal oneness with the Word. Actually, those quotations address the Jews who ask Jesus where His authority comes from.

They address what they address:

John 17:7-8 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

But you say “John does not say the Word was given through Jesus” which contradicts what Jesus just said. Jesus said he got everything from God, even life.

John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

The same Jesus also says:

Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?

An he also says:

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

So if we are all one together does that somehow mean we are all God? Of course not, Jesus being in God and God in him means they have the same purpose. It doesn’t mean Jesus is God.

 

[inJESUS]

Where do you think the human flesh of Jesus came from? Or his human spirit if you say he is fully man? Both existed as a HUMAN before God’s Word “took” them to dwell with. Which is what a prophet is, a human who gets the Spirit and thus God’s Word.

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.

The Word **became **flesh…where do you read that the Word took an existing flesh? the Word itself became flesh in the womb of Mary…so we have the Word (non-material) becoming material…it is the same Word in a material form.

This same Word created everything…without it nothing was created. If you argue that the Word created everything regardless of Jesus that “existed” later as a “channel”, what do you then make of this passage:

But about the Son he says… ‘In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.’” Hebrews 1:8, 10-12

echoing:

O my God,’ I say, ‘take me not hence in the midst of my days, thou whose years endure throughout all generations!’ Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They will perish, but thou dost endure; they will all wear out like a garment. Thou changest them like raiment, and they pass away; but thou art the same, and thy years have no end.” Psalm 102:24-27

and:

For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:16

Do you think Paul was not talking about the man called Jesus? because if the body of Jesus was a creation “taken” by the Word as a channel ,how come the man Jesus is the Creator of everything, before all things?

 

[Angelos]

Where do you think the human flesh of Jesus came from? Or his human spirit if you say he is fully man? Both existed as a HUMAN before God’s Word “took” them to dwell with. Which is what a prophet is, a human who gets the Spirit and thus God’s Word.

You still fail to bring evidence from John 1 that Word had been a different person who was united by human Jesus after His miraculous birth. Jesus’ human body was what the WORD became when the WORD came to our world. You should study a little grammar to see that John uses the same pronoun for the WORD and human JESUS throughout that introductory chapter, emphasizing the fact that they are one and the same PERSON.

Besides, John contends that Jesus is MORE than a prophet - even greater than Moses, through whom the Law was given and through whom God spoke to the Pharaoh - when he states that **grace and truth **came through Jesus Christ. According to John, Jesus is not an ordinary prophet that gives testimony to the LIGHT that gives LIFE (this is what John the Baptist is!), but the very LIGHT and LIFE(John 1: 7-12)

They address what they address:

John 17:7-8 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

But you say “John does not say the Word was given through Jesus” which contradicts what Jesus just said. Jesus said he got everything from God, even life.

John 5:26-27 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

The “words” in plural do not refer to the WORD defined in John 1! The important thing is that John deliberately uses the word CAME while talking of the truth and grace in contrast to the phrase “WERE GIVEN”, which he uses while referring to Moses and the Law:

1: 17. For the law *was given *by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

WAS GIVEN vs CAME: INDIRECT (Moses) vs DIRECT (Jesus)

If your supposition were true, Jesus would have meant God the Father gave the WORD (Jesus) to Jesus! How can the WORD be among the things given to Jesus by the Father when the WORD is no one else but Jesus HIMSELF! God the Father giving Jesus to Jesus? Funny indeed!

An he also says:

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

So if we are all one together does that somehow mean we are all God? Of course not, Jesus being in God and God in him means they have the same purpose. It doesn’t mean Jesus is God.

Yet you do not want to see the fact that Jesus does not say **WE ALL **are in the Father! He says **THE OTHERS **may be ONE in US. Thus, Jesus overtly separates Himself from the OTHERS! This is because Jesus is fully human and fully divine: He IS GOD.

Peace,
Angelos N.B.