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

[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.

**[Matthew 28:19] ****Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. **

There are some other verses in the Bible that also speak of the Trinity;

**St. Paul summarized this Apostolic faith - **

2Cor 13 : 13] The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

Jesus further revealed God as the Father not just as Creator but as eternally Father to Jesus, the only-begotten Son. -

Mt. 11 : 27] All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

The divinity and incarnation of Christ. -

Jn. 1 : 1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He (St. Paul) gives thanks for the grace bestowed upon the Colossians and prays for them. Christ is the head of the church and the peacemaker through his blood. Paul is his minister.

[Col. 1 : 15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

*The firstborn"… That is, first begotten; as the Evangelist declares, the only begotten of his Father: hence, St. Chrisostom explains firstborn, not first created, as he was not created at all, but born of his Father before all ages; that is, coeval with the Father and with the Holy Ghost.

*Jesus says there is “one Lord” -

Mk. 12 : 29-30] And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

** And yet Jesus says that he is “the Lord” -
**
Mk. 12 : 35-37] And Jesus answering, said, teaching in the temple: How do the scribes say, that Christ is the son of David? For David himself saith by the Holy Ghost: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord, and whence is he then his son? And a great multitude heard him gladly.

 

[MH84]

Hi

I have checked with the wikipedia , which contains following remarks:

The most familiar version of the Great Commission is depicted in the Gospel of Matthew 28:16-20:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(NIV)

Other versions of the Great Commission are found in Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:4-8, and John 20:19-23. All these passages are composed as words of Christ spoken after his resurrection.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_28:19

Which means these sentences were perhaps added at a later stage.

Thanks

I think you are incorrect. I think they mean that the words were spoken by Jesus after the Resurrection (which they were). That article doesnt mean they were addedafter.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
I have checked with the wikipedia , which contains following remarks:

The most familiar version of the Great Commission is depicted in the Gospel of Matthew 28:16-20:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”(NIV)

Other versions of the Great Commission are found in Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:4-8, and John 20:19-23. All these passages are composed as words of Christ spoken after his resurrection.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_28:19

Which means these sentences were perhaps added at a later stage.

I think you are incorrect. I think they mean that the words were spoken by Jesus after the Resurrection (which they were). That article doesnt mean they were addedafter.

Hi

My view is different than yours, sorry. I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. We don’t believe that Jesus died on Cross, he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position and later he recovered from the injuries on Cross and lived a normal life when he migrated to the East.

In our view whatever is ascribed to Jesus having spoken by the **risen Jesus **is an addition at a later stage by someone with an ulterior motive, as Jesus was very much alive but living in Kashmir, India; and he did not speak to anyone in Jerusalem or Rome, once he departed from Galilee.

This is what I believe to be correct; and I don’t mind if you differ with me.

Thanks

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .This is what I believe to be correct; and I don’t mind if you differ with me.

Thanks I presume that is only concerning what is in the Bible. Will you be as tolerant if I rewrite Islam for you?

 

[MH84]

In our view whatever is ascribed to Jesus having spoken by the **risen Jesus **is an addition at a later stage by someone with an ulterior motive, as Jesus was very much alive but living in Kashmir, India; and he did not speak to anyone in Jerusalem or Rome, once he departed from Galilee.

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

 

[planten]

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

There seem to be difference in translations. Every day a new translation or version is coming up of the bible. Does it mean that bible is so complicated that it needs a new translation every day? And translation is being done from “What original?” There is none. I suppose it is being done of some English translation into another improved English. That is all. Isn’t it playing with words. There are no real words of God any where in bible anyhow.

They are all words of some men. But every day a new translation or version means much disagreement amongst the christians about the bible. Or, we can say that there is no original bible at all. So these are not bibles but various translations only. Then it is alright. But we cannot call the various versions as a bible.

What I had read about the question / answer session between the high priest and Jesus was : You say you are son of God? Jesus replied, “You say I am”. But here, in the above post the words have been changed to suit their meanings as : Yes, it is as you say".

That changes the meaning altogether. Previously, we read and there was no “Yes” in the reply. It was said “You say I am”. In other words, “I do not say I am. You say I am.”

Do you see the difference that it creates now in the understanding. That has changed the meaning of the verse altogether. Why is that being done? Just to prove that jesus claimed to be God or son of God. Why is that?

Also I am worried about the resurrection. Is it the getting up of Jesus in the tomb or it is his acsention to heaven?? Which one is resurrection? And why so many metaphors / symbolic language is used about Jesus?? That is son and begotten son and risen and resurrection etc. As a Muslim, we cannot understand these things. If these words are metaphors then they should not be taken in the real sense.

 

[MH84]

There seem to be difference in translations. Every day a new translation or version is coming up of the bible. Does it mean that bible is so complicated that it needs a new translation every day? And translation is being done from “What original?” There is none. I suppose it is being done of some English translation into another improved English. That is all. Isn’t it playing with words. There are no real words of God any where in bible anyhow.

**No, most translations are translated from ancient texts i.e. Hebrew and Greek. **

They are all words of some men. But every day a new translation or version means much disagreement amongst the christians about the bible. Or, we can say that there is no original bible at all. So these are not bibles but various translations only. Then it is alright. But we cannot call the various versions as a bible.

You say it is, not Christians. How many translations of the Quran into English are there, wise guy?

What I had read about the question / answer session between the high priest and Jesus was : You say you are son of God? Jesus replied, “You say I am”. But here, in the above post the words have been changed to suit their meanings as : Yes, it is as you say".

That changes the meaning altogether. Previously, we read and there was no “Yes” in the reply. It was said “You say I am”. In other words, “I do not say I am. You say I am.”

What if its the former? What would you do? Believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Yeah right. You are not open to Christianity no matter what Jesus says.

Do you see the difference that it creates now in the understanding. That has changed the meaning of the verse altogether. Why is that being done? Just to prove that jesus claimed to be God or son of God. Why is that?

Translations are different because the ancient languages are not spoken regularly anymore. The Quran is writen in Arabic which is widely spoken, but their are still different interpretations!

Also I am worried about the resurrection. Is it the getting up of Jesus in the tomb or it is his acsention to heaven?? Which one is resurrection? And why so many metaphors / symbolic language is used about Jesus?? That is son and begotten son and risen and resurrection etc. As a Muslim, we cannot understand these things. If these words are metaphors then they should not be taken in the real sense.

**You seem to be ignorant of fundamental Christian beliefs. How can you judge Christianity when you have no idea? The Resurrection occurred when Jesus rose from the died. The Ascension occurred 40 days later when Jesus was taken into Heaven.

Some Muslims can understand these things but just don’t believe them. But you on the other hand, can’t understand at all. Maybe you didnt finish high school or something. Maybe you need to learn. **

 

[Cathlacostal]

Hi

My view is different than yours, sorry. I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. We don’t believe that Jesus died on Cross, he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position and later he recovered from the injuries on Cross and lived a normal life when he migrated to the East.

In our view whatever is ascribed to Jesus having spoken by the **risen Jesus **is an addition at a later stage by someone with an ulterior motive, as Jesus was very much alive but living in Kashmir, India; and he did not speak to anyone in Jerusalem or Rome, once he departed from Galilee.

This is what I believe to be correct; and I don’t mind if you differ with me.

Thanks

Reading the responses to this Muslim, it breaks my heart that some calling themselves Christian berate him so. His willingness to share the beliefs of the non-radical Muslim are insightful and helpful in bridging our gap.
It seems most Christians don’t realize that Muslims honor Christ and honor Mary as well. They believe Christ was born of a Virgin and that He is of God. They simply don’t agree He is God. It seems to me that Muslims have a better grip on it than the LDS.
I completely disagree with those beliefs but respect the willingness of this Muslim to fellowship and share with us. I also respect his beliefs as they belong to him and are important to him.
Of coarse, as a Christian, my prayer is that the Holy Spirit draws him to Christ and his involvement here shows he’s not afraid to hear things in opposition to his beliefs. He’s even willing to endure things spoken against the Koran which shows his tolerance of us. So, do we treat him with love or treat him as our enemy? I choose to treat him with love as we have a common ancestor in Abraham. While he is not our brother in Christ, he is a child of God.

 

[1234]

The verse, for those who don’t have a Bible handy is:

Matt.28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

It isn’t the verse that is the problem–it is the mind set/the preconceived ideas of those who take it upon themselves to interpret the Bible, although they have no authority from God to do so.

That particular verse in Matthew is found only in copies of Matthew dating from the 4th century. By the 4th century, the doctrine of the trinity was well-established.

 

[MH84]

That particular verse in Matthew is found only in copies of Matthew dating from the 4th century. By the 4th century, the doctrine of the trinity was well-established.

1234,
This is a big call you are making here. Could you please provide the website or name of book where you got this information from? Thanks

 

[1234]

There are some other verses in the Bible that also speak of the Trinity;

St. Paul summarized this Apostolic faith -

2Cor 13 : 13] The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

Jesus further revealed God as the Father not just as Creator but as eternally Father to Jesus, the only-begotten Son. -

Mt. 11 : 27] All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

The divinity and incarnation of Christ. -

Jn. 1 : 1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He (St. Paul) gives thanks for the grace bestowed upon the Colossians and prays for them. Christ is the head of the church and the peacemaker through his blood. Paul is his minister.

[Col. 1 : 15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

*The firstborn"… That is, first begotten; as the Evangelist declares, the only begotten of his Father: hence, St. Chrisostom explains firstborn, not first created, as he was not created at all, but born of his Father before all ages; that is, coeval with the Father and with the Holy Ghost.

*Jesus says there is “one Lord” -

Mk. 12 : 29-30] And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

** And yet Jesus says that he is “the Lord” -
**
Mk. 12 : 35-37] And Jesus answering, said, teaching in the temple: How do the scribes say, that Christ is the son of David? For David himself saith by the Holy Ghost: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord, and whence is he then his son? And a great multitude heard him gladly.

Non-Trinitarians do not accept the gospels as containing an accurate account of the sayings of Jesus or the chronological events of his life. The earliest, Mark, dates from about 70 CE (Common Era, the designation usually used in scholarly publications, aka AD), and the other gospels much later. The fact that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, Jesus’ language, means that the authors were not Jews or native speaker of Aramaic or writers of Hebrew. The passage in Matthew, 27:19 ,the baptism section, is found only in texts dating from the 4th century.

And so on. The scholarship of early Christian writings is an absolute maze of attributions, inference, deductions and conjecture, late interpolations and inconsistencies, all concerning documents existing only in fragments, late, incomplete or lost copies and contradictory statements, all written in illegible handwriting in archaic languages.

I would never base my beliefs on this sort of evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Reading the responses to this Muslim, it breaks my heart that some calling themselves Christian berate him so. His willingness to share the beliefs of the non-radical Muslim are insightful and helpful in bridging our gap.
It seems most Christians don’t realize that Muslims honor Christ and honor Mary as well. They believe Christ was born of a Virgin and that He is of God. They simply don’t agree He is God. It seems to me that Muslims have a better grip on it than the LDS.
I completely disagree with those beliefs but respect the willingness of this Muslim to fellowship and share with us. I also respect his beliefs as they belong to him and are important to him.
Of coarse, as a Christian, my prayer is that the Holy Spirit draws him to Christ and his involvement here shows he’s not afraid to hear things in opposition to his beliefs. He’s even willing to endure things spoken against the Koran which shows his tolerance of us. So, do we treat him with love or treat him as our enemy? I choose to treat him with love as we have a common ancestor in Abraham. While he is not our brother in Christ, he is a child of God.

Hi

Thanks for your charitable remarks. I appreciate your viewpoint. I love you too.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Non-Trinitarians do not accept the gospels as containing an accurate account of the sayings of Jesus or the chronological events of his life. The earliest, Mark, dates from about 70 CE (Common Era, the designation usually used in scholarly publications, aka AD), and the other gospels much later. The fact that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, Jesus’ language, means that the authors were not Jews or native speaker of Aramaic or writers of Hebrew. The passage in Matthew, 27:19 ,the baptism section, is found only in texts dating from the 4th century.

And so on. The scholarship of early Christian writings is an absolute maze of attributions, inference, deductions and conjecture, late interpolations and inconsistencies, all concerning documents existing only in fragments, late, incomplete or lost copies and contradictory statements, all written in illegible handwriting in archaic languages.

I would never base my beliefs on this sort of evidence.

Hi

I agree with you.

Thanks

 

[planten]

Non-Trinitarians do not accept the gospels as containing an accurate account of the sayings of Jesus or the chronological events of his life. The earliest, Mark, dates from about 70 CE (Common Era, the designation usually used in scholarly publications, aka AD), and the other gospels much later. The fact that they were written in Greek, not Hebrew, Jesus’ language, means that the authors were not Jews or native speaker of Aramaic or writers of Hebrew. The passage in Matthew, 27:19 ,the baptism section, is found only in texts dating from the 4th century.

And so on. The scholarship of early Christian writings is an absolute maze of attributions, inference, deductions and conjecture, late interpolations and inconsistencies, all concerning documents existing only in fragments, late, incomplete or lost copies and contradictory statements, all written in illegible handwriting in archaic languages.

I would never base my beliefs on this sort of evidence.

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.

 

[MH84]

If someone could answer the response from brought up by the poster in post #16, that would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[kfp4]

Someone whom I requested contribute to this thread has provided an argument below against the Trinitarian proof of Matthew 28:19:

I have looked up some of the different English translations and I see different wordings of the same verse (Gn 48:16). I’ll post a few examples:

DR

RSV

KJB

bible.crosswalk.com/

It seems that Matthew 28:19 may not be that clear after all.

So, can anyone who can read the Greek scriptures contribute to this? Or anyone who can provide insight? thanks

WIth reference to the discrepancy about the word "onoma:, it seems that many of the early christian writers used the form that includes baptise. "Though readings of Mat 28:19 have not been found in surviving ante-nicene New Testament manuscripts, according to the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection of writings, Ignatius (35-110 A.D.), Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Tertullian (155-250 A.D.), Hippolytus (170-245 A.D.), Cyprian (?-258 A.D.), and others already were quoting the longer version of Mat 28:19, with the trinitarian formula, many years before Eusebius quoted a shorter version, without the trinitarian formula. The overwhelming evidence is in support of the longer reading, and as Allen commented, “The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive.”

It still should be noted that the Mat 28:19 trinitarian formula only lists togather the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It does not equate them as comprising one God as does the Nicene Creed. For more info on the Trinity, see http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm."

 

[paarsurrey]

It still should be noted that the Mat 28:19 trinitarian formula only lists togather the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It does not equate them as comprising one God as does the Nicene Creed. For more info on the Trinity, see http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm."

Hi

The last words of Jesus on Cross, My God , My God , Whay have you forsaken me, tells us that Jesus had only one GodAllahYHWH, not three, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[1234]

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 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.

 

[planten]

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.

Yes, good information. Thanks. And that cry of jesus in agony “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” also proves that jesus had A GOD.
The christians are not sure about three gods. Mathew or no mathew, the christians are not sure about their three gods because they talk of One God too. At the same time they are looking into the triune nature of God or triune (Three) Gods. They already have got jesus mixed up into being a god and a man. And a son of man and a son of God. There is also the belief of One God and three gods both at the same time.

So it appears that the christians are not sure of the truth yet. Let them come to some understanding of their own beliefs and then we may discuss things with them. Uptil now they are sailing in many boats at the same time. We will look into their beliefs with sincerety and honesty.
Otherwise, till then, we can say that mathew verse 28:19 did not mean three gods. It may have been inserted at the wrong (later) time.

 

[BartBurk]

The verse, for those who don’t have a Bible handy is:

Matt.28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

It isn’t the verse that is the problem–it is the mind set/the preconceived ideas of those who take it upon themselves to interpret the Bible, although they have no authority from God to do so.

Mormons see this as a reference to three separate Gods in the Godhead.