Since you have addressed this comment to me, please explain in what way I was shouting.
Was it because I wrote “nowhere” in caps? I did that only for emphasis. I guess I could have bolded it and would have, if that should have made you feel better.
Indeed of the 59 extant manuscripts of the NT or part of the NT, copied prior to A.D. 300 , not one even contains Matthew 28:19.
Ivernessian, I tend to agree with Davo’s statement. Israel was built on the principles of God, in the name of all that comes from His Holy Spirit,-truth, justice, freedom from oppression, decency, order, fairness, mercy, etc.
It is similar to saying that slavery was brought to an end in America in the name of all that is decent and holy-(God), in the name of the founding fathers and the sons who gave their lives to build a nation on these beliefs-"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As I try to understand, the theologies presented on this forum…as far as I can recall…this is the first time, I heard LLC refer to the “Holy Spirit”…Can you please enlighten me, LLC…as to what this is and how it works, in the LLC theology book?
As the man said, in the Dirty Harry movie:
“I gots to know!”
HF, the Holy Spirit/ Spirit of God/God is not a man and according to the early Hebrews, He has no name. Love, wisdom, truth, etc.etc. are not persons. Men such as the Father Abraham can possess these qualities, but they are not God.
From what I read here, there is no manuscript of Matthew that has some “short form” of the verse, and there is no Greek manuscript of the last page of Matthew that does not include baptizing “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
Even if we cannot find or access early manuscripts before the fourth century to see if they contain Matthew 28.19, we can still consult the many Christian authors who lived in the second and third centuries to see how they CITED IT. Below is a list of a few quotations.
Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4
“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”
First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61
“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”
Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1
“…And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘ Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’…”
On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”
The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18
“And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit , and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.”
Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7
“…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…”
The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it. Furthermore, I have not found any controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. This is mounting up to be a really solid case: not only do ALL extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28.19 in them contain the traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the traditional version. Suddenly the case from Eusebius’ quotations does not seem so impressive. Even so, let’s consider Eusebius’ statements to better understand what is happening…
HF, I don’t agree with the diagram.
I would say the following:
God IS the Holy Spirit
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Father
The Father is not God
The Son is not God
God was in the Father/Fathers( Abraham for example)
God was in the Son/Sons (Isaac, Jacob, Jesus etc.)
Good quotes, Hermano. I was familiar with all of them that were prior to A.D. 200.
However, they are not quotes about baptizing “in the name of the Trinity.” They had no concept of “the Trinity.” That was a later concept developed in the fourth century.
Look carefully at the words " in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Because of your Trinitarian belief you presume that is one name, but that is not necessarily so.
Consider this. An English police officer may have said, “Stop in the name of the king and of the queen!”
Would you conclude from this that the king and the queen had the same name? It refers rather to the authority of the king and the queen.
As I see it, the Father and the Son have authority. Jesus said to be baptized in the authority of each. The Holy Spirit is the the spirit— the very persons of the Father and of the Son as they extend their persons into the hearts and minds of believers. There too, there is authority.
From the Reformed confession (Westminster):
- There is but one only living, and true God,
- who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
- God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;
-And is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them:
-He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth.
- In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, he is pleased to require of them.
I think we can all agree on that much. (Though in good Reformed manner it does not speak of John 3.16 or 1 John 4.8, alas)
Surprisingly to me, the above is the conception from other religions as well - Hindu, some Buddhist, even some Islamic medieval theologians - which makes sense, since God is not the God of only Christian people, but of all people. We all have that God in common - the one defined above, that is. Of course as Christian believers we believe that that God has specifically defined Himself and His intentions and love through the revelation of His son and that, we believe, makes all the difference.
I suppose one could say that the above description is made richer by adding the ‘eternally existing in 3 persons’ theory and if one wants to do that, I guess there is no real harm (unless used as a point of division between Christians, or the claim that 'our God is better than your God) - but I also don’t see it as adding anything - actually it confuses what is the meaning of the word ‘god’ in many ways. Is there any lack at all in the God as described above? Is the Father not infinite in glory, and power, honor and love?
In any case we have a Father, for all of us, each and every person in the world, and I think we all agree on that much.
Then what was the relevance of this earlier post Paidion?
I think my favorite Christian mystics, are Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart. Let me quote a bit on Eckhart:
Introduction to Meister Eckhart
But creatures cannot be satisfied with the realization of God as God, because this still implies dualism. Thus Eckhart writes that “God as God is not the final goal of creatures. If a flea had intellect and could plumb the eternal abyss of God’s being, out of which it came, then not God and all God is could fulfill that flea. Therefore we pray we may be quit of God and get the truth and enjoy eternity, for the highest angel and the soul are all the same yonder where I was and willed that I was and was that I willed.” In deep contemplation, God as God—that is, as a conceptual designation for being or consciousness somehow separate from us—can not satisfy our deepest longing for realization. Thus we must be “quit of God” and enter into what precedes and transcends the division between God and creatures, which Eckhart refers to as the Godhead.
Eckhart lays great emphasis on this point, and goes so far as to write that “Why I pray God to rid me of God is because conditionless being is above God and above distinction. It was there I was myself, there I willed myself and knew myself to make this man. In this sense I am my own cause, both of my eternal nature and my temporal nature. In my birth all things were born, and I was the cause of my own self and all things.” In other words, in the deepest contemplative experience, one enters into “conditionless being” that is prior to and beyond all distinctions, beyond therefore the distinct concept of God, so that “I” become “my own cause.” If we remain in a self-other relation to God, we remain trapped in discursive reason and are incapable of going beyond this subject-object division.
Eckhart, in such daring passages, is urging us to go beyond this apparent subject-object division, just as he has done, and just as St. Paul did. Eckhart remarks that “I will put into plain words what St. Paul means by wishing to depart from God. Man’s last and highest leave-taking is leaving God for God. St. Paul left God for God: he left everything he could give or take of God, every concept of God. In leaving these, he left God for God since God remained to him in his essential self, not as a concept of himself, or as an acquired thing, but God in his essential actuality.” For this reason, Eckhart adds, St. Paul revealed himself to be perfect, that is, to have left behind the self-other distinction and to have realized for himself what is beyond the concept of God. One who has done that is known, Eckhart tells us, as a “true man,” that is, as someone who has realized what the true purpose is of human life.
Sometimes I can get deep. And other times, I’m back in the real world - with things like this! 
Purely informational.
But you didn’t give the full information which you clearly knew about:
You left that to Hermano.
Your partial information left any reader with the impression that Matt 28:19 was a late insertion to promote a late Trinity doctrine. Hermano proved that to be false and all you can say is that you already knew that.
If your case (of a Christ who is not co-equal with the Father) is a good one, you do it no favours by these misleading tactics. It is the second time in as many weeks that you have given ‘irrelevant’ (or deliberately misleading) information in order to support your preferred doctrine.
1 Like
Here’s some Got Question’s perspective, on the Great Commission.
I regret that you regard my words in this manner. If you knew me better, such accusations would never have entered your head.
It is true that I do not know you well. I only know you by the words you type on this forum. I wish that I could meet you, have a drink and a chat with you. No doubt we can do that in the next life and I look forward to it, but for the present, all I can do is assess your arguments as best I can.
That sort of statement may indicate that you feel hurt or something else about your character but does nothing to explain your input and therefore gets us no further.
If you could explain why you gave partial information in the manner you did and how you thought that information would be of assistance to the debate (ie what we were supposed to infer from your input), perhaps my opinion would change.
I enjoy much of your input on this forum and have learned from you in the past but neither you nor I are yet perfected.
God bless you Paidion.
2 Likes
Paidion, I agree.
I believe the Father the author is referring to here is Abraham.
Matt. 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham."
Genesis 12: 2 addressed to Abraham “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great.”
Luke 16:24-25 “Then he cried and said ’ Father Abraham have mercy on me’…but Abraham said, Son, remember in your lifetime you received good things…”
Luke 16:22 So it was that the beggar died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom."
Matt. 3:9 " And do not think to say ’ We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones."
Gal. 3:29 “If you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s seed.”
Matt.8:11-12 " Many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac an Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."
Romans 4:16 “For Abraham is the father of all who believe.”
There are some references to David as the father as well.
Mark 10:48 “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me.”
Mark 11:10 " Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that comes in the name of the Lord."
Talk about taking words out of context!
The word “son” in Matt. 1:1 is in the lower case in the Greek, not the upper case. In Luke 16:25, Abraham addresses Dives as “Child”, not “Son”. The other references you provide are inconsequential, imo.
I think you may be pulling our legs. 
Could be, but it depends on what tribe you are from… So you will have to either accept other versions of God or fight for your version. You see it is not easy or simple.
LLC, your quote from Matt 1:1 is clearly His physical descendency. God was His Father in that He had begotten His Son as the first of His acts. The world didn’t even exist then.