Does or can God have a God and a Father?

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:

Serious scripture study about blasphemy shows hearers of Jesus understood His statements as being God in human flesh (so those hearers wanted to kill Jesus).
Matthew 26:59-66, Mark 14:60-64, John 10:24-33

I already addressed this ... noting the simple plain fact that the claim you make that Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh is NOT even found in these passages. I wonder who of u sis doing the serious scripture study to which you allude above ... isn't accurately reading of the text the first step to a serious study of Scripture?

To accurately understand illegal Jewish trial of Jesus, we need to understand the Jewish context (meaning of original words in original setting).

Now, let me tell you, the Jewish context was certainly NOT TRINITARIAN !!!

Caiaphas, the High Priest, placed Jesus under oath by the Living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God. Caiaphas reaction to Jewish response by Jesus shows Caiaphas understanding "Jesus is God" so wanted Jesus put to death for blasphemy.

The charge concerned whether Jesus was THE SON of God, the Messiah ... the charge was NOT whether Jesus was God. Anyone claiming to be God would have been simply considered "sick in the head" ... and no charge would even be brought forth.

That there is no "God the Son" in Scripture has nothing to do with my belief or anyone else's belief .... use your Logos Bible software and do a search, your search will come up with "0 results"

LET ME [as God’s representative] sing of and for my greatly Beloved [God, the Son] a tender song of my Beloved concerning His vineyard [His chosen people]. My greatly Beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill. [S. of Sol. 6:3; Matt. 21:33–40.]

??? that passage also has NOTHING whatever about a "God, the Son" ... why are you not reading more accurately ??

The Messiah, Jesus, was both Man (physically) and God (spiritually). Romans 1:1-7

Seriously, @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, how or where does Rom 1:1-7 say what you are claiming ??

God promised this Good News in advance through his prophets in the Tanakh. It concerns his Son—he is descended from David physically; he was powerfully demonstrated to be Son of God spiritually, set apart by his having been resurrected from the dead; he is Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord. Through him we received grace and were given the work of being an emissary on his behalf promoting trust-grounded obedience among all the Gentiles, including you, who have been called by Yeshua the Messiah.

Indeed ... and NOTHING here states directly or indirectly or even suggests a "God, the Son".

Does a serious Scripture study not quickly show and prove that Scripture knows NO such "dual beings" as "God-man" or "man-God" ?? What do you mean with "Jesus was ...God (SPIRITUALLY)" ? Are you referring to holy spirit being up him, which was the case after God had anointed him with holy spirit and power (cp Peter's words in Acts 10)?

Apologies for my serious study not matching yours (plus feels like cannot receive what do not want to believe).
Unclean spirit in Mark 1:23-25 testifies that the man Jesus is the Holy One of God, who was capable of destroying unclean spirit. Also unclean spirit obeyed Jesus' commands.

Well, even the demons and devils knew that Jesus was NOT God but rather the Messiah, that man who is here called "Holy One OF God" ... did you by accident perhaps read "Holy God"?

In their synagogue there was a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, “Leave us alone! What do You have to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are, the Holy One of God.”
Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!” When the unclean spirit had convulsed him and cried out with a loud voice, it came out of him.

See above ... NO mention or indication of a "God, the Son" anywhere in sight.

Who is the Son in Romans 5:10 ? What is the Son's relationship to God ?

The man Christ Jesus is the son of God ... which is NOT the same as the man Christ Jesus is God.

Please explain Romans 5:11 "our Lord Jesus Christ" since how can Jesus Christ be our Lord if Jesus Christ is not "God the Son" ?

You ask a wrong "backward" question ...
A serious scripture study on your part could show you the answer to your question ... GOD made the man Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (cp. Acts 2:36)

Acts 2:33-36 includes Jesus being exalted to the right hand of God that echos Jesus reply in Matthew 26:64 that caused Caiaphas to declare Jesus being guilty for blasphemy (God in human flesh).

Yes ... and says NOTHING about Jesus becoming God or returning to be God, or a "God, the Son".

So you have your God sitting at His own right hand next to His own throne?

Thankful for God the Father sitting on His Throne in heaven with the "Son of Man" (the Word became flesh, Son of God, Jesus, Yeshua, Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, ...) seated at His right hand.

Well, at least here to did not insert your non-existing "God, the Son" into the listing

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

Please help me understand your view of John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
My study connects The Word in John 1:14 with John 1:1 where The Word was being God. Connecting John 1:15 and 1:29 shows name for flesh of The Word (God) is Jesus.

@Wolfgang said:
See above ... NO mention or indication of a "God, the Son" anywhere in sight.

Literal blinder is phrase "God, the Son" (that I had in view for only one of my previous replies when I found some results using Logos Bible Software with the Amplified Bible having the phrase "God, the Son" in Isaiah 5:1 plus found God's Word translation has a sentence that ends in God. The Son of Man begins next sentence in Job 16:21).
Keep Smiling

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
Please help me understand your view of John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
My study connects The Word in John 1:14 with John 1:1 where The Word was being God. Connecting John 1:15 and 1:29 shows name for flesh of The Word (God) is Jesus.

I have repeatedly mentioned an illustration from my own life concerning how "word became flesh" ( for example: https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/12022/#Comment_12022

Yes, "Word" in John 1:1 is the same "Word" as in John 1:14 ... "WORD" (not an already living person of any kind) then "became flesh", that is, the human person which this "word" was about was conceived and born (cp. Gal 4:4). In other words, God's Word about that human Messiah which was from even before the foundation of the world in God's foreknowledge (cp. 1Pe 1:20) -- that is God's plan which was in God's mind from the beginning -- was manifested, became reality, when the human person - a person of flesh and blood - in that "word" was conceived and born.

Simple key to help understand the matter => first was God's plan as defined and expressed in "word" in God's mind and increasingly revealed and proclaimed throughout OT age, then what was "word" when the time was fulfilled "became flesh" and the human person of flesh and blood "lived (tabernacled) among us".

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
Please help me understand your view of John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
My study connects The Word in John 1:14 with John 1:1 where The Word was being God. Connecting John 1:15 and 1:29 shows name for flesh of The Word (God) is Jesus.

I have repeatedly mentioned an illustration from my own life concerning how "word became flesh" ( for example: https://christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/12022/#Comment_12022

After you were married, you became a father when your child was conceived with subsequent birth of a son.
In a similar manner, One True God became the Father when The Word (eternal God) was conceived as a human child. Psalm 2:7 decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my Son, today I have become your Father." (with prophetic fulfillment in Matthew 1:18-23 and Luke 1:26-38)

Yes, "Word" in John 1:1 is the same "Word" as in John 1:14 ... "WORD" (not an already living person of any kind) then "became flesh", that is, the human person which this "word" was about was conceived and born (cp. Gal 4:4). In other words, God's Word about that human Messiah which was from even before the foundation of the world in God's foreknowledge (cp. 1Pe 1:20) -- that is God's plan which was in God's mind from the beginning -- was manifested, became reality, when the human person - a person of flesh and blood - in that "word" was conceived and born.
Simple key to help understand the matter => first was God's plan as defined and expressed in "word" in God's mind and increasingly revealed and proclaimed throughout OT age, then what was "word" when the time was fulfilled "became flesh" and the human person of flesh and blood "lived (tabernacled) among us".

Yes, Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us." that is literally True since the Holy human child had the One True God's nature inside (The Word) while God the Father continued ruling from His Throne in heaven. The essence of One True God was in two places at the same time as Father and Son.
Keep Smiling

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
After you were married, you became a father when your child was conceived with subsequent birth of a son.

The point here is that prior to the conception and birth, our children existed in the form of "word" in our plan (they were not already alive somewhere in some way), and this our "word" became flesh with the conception and birth of the child.

In a similar manner, One True God became the Father when The Word (eternal God) was conceived as a human child.

The Word is not the eternal God ... it is what is in God's foreknowledge, in God's plan, which in the form of word(s) was then revealed and made known and eventually, when the time was fulfilled, "became flesh" when what was word became reality in the conception and birth of the human being Jesus.

Yes, "Word" in John 1:1 is the same "Word" as in John 1:14 ... "WORD" (not an already living person of any kind) then "became flesh", that is, the human person which this "word" was about was conceived and born (cp. Gal 4:4). In other words, God's Word about that human Messiah which was from even before the foundation of the world in God's foreknowledge (cp. 1Pe 1:20) -- that is God's plan which was in God's mind from the beginning -- was manifested, became reality, when the human person - a person of flesh and blood - in that "word" was conceived and born.
Simple key to help understand the matter => first was God's plan as defined and expressed in "word" in God's mind and increasingly revealed and proclaimed throughout OT age, then what was "word" when the time was fulfilled "became flesh" and the human person of flesh and blood "lived (tabernacled) among us".

Yes, Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us."

God has been with mankind throughout human history in various ways as His will in the form of words was revealed and made known to man.

that is literally True since the Holy human child had the One True God's nature inside (The Word) while God the Father continued ruling from His Throne in heaven.

No, this is not literally true as the child spoken of in Mt 1:23 was NOT himself God who had become a human baby ... God (the One Who Alone is true God .. Jesus' Father in heaven !!) was with His people by means of the child who was to be God's Messiah.
God does not become a human baby !! The "nature" of God is not "word", but SPIRIT (in contrast to "flesh and blood" which is the nature of humans.

The essence of One True God was in two places at the same time as Father and Son.
Keep Smiling

Actually, I am weeping at reading in your post what Trinitarian doctrine does to a person who appears to be seeking to please the true God and live in a godly manner in accordance with God's truth as revealed in Scripture. I am, once again, rather angry at the distortion and the sly lies planted into the hearts and minds of people by Trinity proponents ...

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
After you were married, you became a father when your child was conceived with subsequent birth of a son.

The point here is that prior to the conception and birth, our children existed in the form of "word" in our plan (they were not already alive somewhere in some way), and this our "word" became flesh with the conception and birth of the child.

Concur with similarity to the One True God's Holy redemption plan from sin that existed prior to creation of the world.

In a similar manner, One True God became the Father when The Word (eternal God) was conceived as a human child.

The Word is not the eternal God ... it is what is in God's foreknowledge, in God's plan, which in the form of word(s) was then revealed and made known and eventually, when the time was fulfilled, "became flesh" when what was word became reality in the conception and birth of the human being Jesus.

Greek grammar shows John 1:1 The Word quality was being God (θεός) in the beginning, which is different than foreknowledge (προγινώσκω). My Logos library has many Greek lexicons (e.g. BDAG3, LSJ9, Brill's Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek); for θεός none of my Greek lexicons have foreknowledge in the definition of God.
The essence of God is more than The Word while all the essence of The Word is being God.
This discussion has helped me with non-biblical terminology for explaining the divine nature of God. Prior to the world being created, God the Will and God The Word existed as One with Holy redemption plan from sin: God the Will became God the Father (today in Psalm 2:7) when God the Word became God the Son by becoming a Holy human baby. Humanly amazed and Thankful for God transforming God the Word (from His throne in heaven) into a tiny human baby (in a virgin's womb on earth).

Yes, "Word" in John 1:1 is the same "Word" as in John 1:14 ... "WORD" (not an already living person of any kind) then "became flesh", that is, the human person which this "word" was about was conceived and born (cp. Gal 4:4). In other words, God's Word about that human Messiah which was from even before the foundation of the world in God's foreknowledge (cp. 1Pe 1:20) -- that is God's plan which was in God's mind from the beginning -- was manifested, became reality, when the human person - a person of flesh and blood - in that "word" was conceived and born.
Simple key to help understand the matter => first was God's plan as defined and expressed in "word" in God's mind and increasingly revealed and proclaimed throughout OT age, then what was "word" when the time was fulfilled "became flesh" and the human person of flesh and blood "lived (tabernacled) among us".

Yes, Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us."

God has been with mankind throughout human history in various ways as His will in the form of words was revealed and made known to man.

Husband & Wife becoming one flesh Genesis 2:24 reflects design of intimacy between God the Will (Father) and God the Word (Son). In John 10:30 Jesus said: "I and The Father are One." Children obeying their parents Ephesians 6:1-3 reflects God the Holy Spirit obeying God the Father and God the Son.
Thankful for all nature declaring the Glory of God that includes a number of trio's:

• State of Matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas
• Primary Colors: Red, Yellow, Blue
• Atom: Proton, Neutron, Electron

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
that is literally True since the Holy human child had the One True God's nature inside (The Word) while God the Father continued ruling from His Throne in heaven.

No, this is not literally true as the child spoken of in Mt 1:23 was NOT himself God who had become a human baby ... God (the One Who Alone is true God .. Jesus' Father in heaven !!) was with His people by means of the child who was to be God's Messiah.
God does not become a human baby !! The "nature" of God is not "word", but SPIRIT (in contrast to "flesh and blood" which is the nature of humans.

Seriously puzzled by fuzzy interpretation when literal meaning of John 1:14 "The Word became flesh" fits One True God's plan for Holy redemption from sin. After Thomas physically touched resurrected body of Jesus, he proclaimed "My Lord and My God!" John 10:28 If Jesus knew that he is not truly God, then Thomas should have been rebuked. Instead Jesus received Godly worship from Thomas

The essence of One True God was in two places at the same time as Father and Son.

Actually, I am weeping at reading in your post what Trinitarian doctrine does to a person who appears to be seeking to please the true God and live in a godly manner in accordance with God's truth as revealed in Scripture. I am, once again, rather angry at the distortion and the sly lies planted into the hearts and minds of people by Trinity proponents ...

Likewise weeping for a hermeneutic that causes Truth of God to be hidden/missed, which prevents a personal relationship with Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, Priest, Friend, ...
Apologies for my lack of knowledge about Trinity proponents.
Thankful for God answering my prayers to "Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law." Thankful for Ephesians 5:18-20 being alive in me with many songs that Praise and Thank God Thankful for God correcting/changing me along with growing in the Grace and Knowledge of God
Keep Smiling

Bill_Coley

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
Scholarly reminder that serious scripture study seeks original context insights: cultural, historical, & linguistic. Jesus applied Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 to Himself in Matthew 26:59-66 and Mark 14:60-64 that was immediately followed by being judged guilty of blasphemy (human being God), which deserved the death penalty (crucifixion).

The two references you cite are tangential, at best, and in neither instance demonstrate a suggestion from Jesus that he views himself as God. At best, in those texts he sees himself as the coming Son of Man, who, according to Psalm 110.1, sits at God's right hand. One who is God cannot sit at God's right hand.

Remember also that Psalm 110 is widely, though not unanimously, considered among scholars to be a royal psalm - about a then-current king.

Who was the human leader that was heir to David's throne & Righteous ?

The last pre-exilic king in Judah was Zedekiah, whose name meant "the Lord is my righteousness." Jeremiah 23.6 says the king God will provide will be named "the Lord is our righteousness." One possibility is that the prophet gives a title to the promised king that is a play on Zedekiah's name. But clearly we're not told directly which king the prophet refers to.

The Messiah was the eternal heir to David's throne & Righteous.

Where in the Jeremiah text do you find any reference to an eternal messiah? I find reference to a time- and circumstance-limited messiah who will rescue the exiles of Israel (from Assyria) and Judah (from Babylonia).

Concur God deserves Praises & Thanks plus humanly growing older has its opportunities since Ephesians 3:14-21 is Paul's prayer that includes searching every dimension for God's Love. Found John 14:9-14 is one place that Jesus told his disciples they can ask him for anything in his name. Many prayers are offered in the name of Jesus. Some prayers are offered through Jesus Christ: e.g. Romans 16:25-27, Ephesians 3:14-21, Jude 24-25

My point was that in the NT, prayers are offered in the name of Jesus, but NOT to Jesus. Nothing in your response here contradicts my claim. To my knowledge of the Gospels, Jesus never instructs his followers to pray TO him, that HE will answer their prayers. No. Jesus sees himself as a conduit, a mediator between his followers and God. That's NOT the same as seeing himself as God.

Human believers in Jesus Christ can personally experience the One True God with prayers to God powered through his Spirit in your inner being plus Christ dwelling in your hearts through faith. Ephesians 3:16-17 is part of Paul's prayer in Ephesians 3:14-21

My question regarded the Trinitarian applicability of your Trump family analogy - re: the multiple roles Donald Trump plays. In my view, neither this nor your previous response to it addresses that question.

John 3:14-21 includes God's Love for the world plus our need to believe (trust) Him for eternal life. Ephesians 1:3-14 is one long Greek sentence that includes God's plan before the creation of the world for us to be Holy in Him in Love. Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Remember context of David, Bathsheba, Uriah, and Nathan in 2 Samuel 11-12 for Psalm 51 that includes "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." God desires Holy people to dwell with Him. Poor, broken spirit recognizes need for God's Love so God's Holy way for redemption from sin is effective

My question regarded the biblical basis for your claim about God's "need to be loved." In my view, this response of yours does not address that question.

Leviticus 22 includes sacrifice for sin needing to be unblemished (without defect).

I think you offer a fair characterization of Leviticus 22. But remember that in other parts of the OT, God's disdain for sacrifices is clear (Psalm 51.16-17; Jeremiah 6.19-20, 7.21-23; Hosea 6.6; Amos 5.21-24; Micah 6.6-8)

Scripture text tells of three whose human existence began Holy: Adam, Eve, and Jesus. All other descendants of Adam are blemished due to inherited sin nature. Adam & Eve choose to believe a lie & die (sin by disobeying God). Jesus was conceived Holy so did not inherit sin nature plus choose to obey God (never sinned).

Hebrews 2.17 says Jesus had to be made like us "in every respect." In my view, that means Jesus also had the capacity to sin.

Humans are limited to physically being in one place at one time. God is not limited. His Holy plan of redemption included God ruling on His Throne in Heaven while The Messiah had God nature in human flesh on earth. Holy Spirit could be everywhere doing miracles for the Glory of God

I read this as an expression of your theology, which I very much respect.

Evil spirit reaction to Jesus provides insight in Mark 1:24 "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth ? Have you come to destroy us ? I know who you are - the Holy One of God!" Mark 1:21-28, Luke 4:33-37, Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, and Luke 8:28-34 include unclean spirits terrified (testifying) Jesus is God. Personally not know any human(s) who can destroy unclean spirit(s).

Re-visit your quotation of the evil spirit, who says Jesus is "the Holy One OF God." In none of the texts you cite does anyone or anything call Jesus God. He is "of God" and "from God," but never God.

As for what humans can destroy, empowered by God, in my view, humans can do amazing, holy things, of which only God is capable.

Matthew 28:18-20 includes baptism commandment by Jesus in One name (with three "of" parts).

There are lots of questions as to the origin and authenticity of Matthew 28.18-20.

Ephesians 1:3-14 is one long Greek sentence that includes Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit.

I could dissect the Ephesians passage clause by clause, but I have other things I have to do tonight, so it will have to suffice for me to observe that NOWHERE in that passage does the writer call Jesus God. Jesus is the son of the Father (v.3) he is the one through whom God chose us to be holy before God (v.4) and the one through whom we are adopted as God's children (v.5) but not once does the writer call Jesus God.

Thankful for Godly prayer example of awesome Love One God has three distinct persona's that truly Love each other that includes God the Word (Son) doing God the Father's will (plus prayer example for us to cry out to God about anything in our lives)

Again you express your theology, which has my respect. But I disagree with your contention that Scripture argues that God has "three distinct personas." Time and again, Jesus claims to be other than God. In my view, we should take him at his word.

Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

Jesus sits "at the right hand of the throne OF God." The text does not say Jesus sits in throne AS God.

A small thing, but this is a favorite nitpick of mine: Luke does NOT say Jesus sweated blood. Luke says Jesus' sweat fell to the ground like "great drops of blood" (Luke 22.44).

Hematidrosis is "An extremely rare condition characterised by the sweating of blood, which is said to occur when a person is facing death or other highly stressful events. It has been seen in prisoners before execution and occurred during the London Blitz."

In my view, the Gospel writers use a simile to describe Jesus' sweat ("like" drops of blood). Had they wanted to say he sweated blood, they would have not have used the language of simile.

Reading Psalm 22 brings tears to my eyes Two sayings of Jesus on the cross express anguish about being forsaken by God. To me, the stress of being separated from those you intensely Love (with communion & fellowship that predates world being created) seems more likely cause for hematidrosis. Jesus knew his body would be resurrected so would have victory over death. Humanly guessing at agony experienced by One True God during crucifixion Song "Here I am to Worship" includes "I'll never know how much it cost To see my sin upon that cross"

My question had to do with your claim that Jesus "feared separation/tearing from the triune God." If Jesus knew God would raise his body, what was the basis for his fear of separation? Also, where in the crucifixion scene do you find support for a "triune" God?

Revelation 1:4 reminds me of Revelation 4:8 "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come" so John's greeting begins with Grace and Peace from the Lord God Almighty (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) followed by greeting from Jesus, who is the firstborn (preeminent) from the dead (Father and Holy Spirit stayed alive when Jesus physically died).

Once again you express your theology, and that I respect. In my view, however, Revelation does not support your claim. In fact, Revelation 1.4-5 makes it clear that Jesus is NOT "the one who was, and is, and is to come." Plus, there is no indication in Revelation 4.8 that "the Lord God Almighty" is a triune being. Given that Revelation 1.4-5 declares that Jesus is NOT "the one who was, and is, and is to come," in my view Revelation 4.8 cannot refer to a triune being, at least not one that includes Jesus.

---

I enjoy our exchanges.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
There is NO "God the Son" in Scripture.

Pray asking God to open your eyes followed by serious Bible Study examining the letter of 1st John for God, Son, Love, and Life.

Thank you for your encouragement ... God has opened my eyes 4 decades ago to learn from Scripture that He - God - is not a TRIO, a TRINITY or similar construct, and that such ideas were introduced into the Christian church already in the first few centuries AD and establishing apostate "Christianity" as propagated especially by the Roman Church.

Remember Matthew 28:18-20 includes baptism command in the name (with trio "of" God parts):
And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age.”
W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Mt 28:18–20.

I do remember that passage very well, have studied it in detail and have read quite a fwe commentary articles concerning it .... in particular about the discrepancy between the wording in Mt 28:19 and the wording found in records in Acts where the apostles carried out Jesus' commission but never once used that wording. Already at Pentecost, only a few days after Jesus had spoken those words, Peter seems to have either forgotten what Jesus had commanded or he took the liberty to change Jesus' command ....
The difficulty appears to be caused in that after the council of Nicea in 325 AD, the wording in Mt 28:19 was changed from " .... make disciples of all nations IN MY NAME" and a baptism formular was inserted with " ... baptizing them in the name of the Fathere, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

What textual variant manuscript(s) can you offer for alleged Matthew 28:19 change ?
Metzger's Textual Commentary Greek NT and Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible have nothing for Matthew 28:19 (while Amen in Matthew 28:20 has some insertion questions)
SBL Greek NT & NA27 with Apparatus shows βαπτίσαντες variant in Tregelles while 19 Greek Bibles in my Logos Library have βαπτίζοντες including Codex Sinaiticus that has
βαπτιζοντες αυτους ·εις το ονομα του πρ̅ς και του ϋϊου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅
International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), Codex Sinaiticus: Septuagint and New Testament (Cambridge, UK: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012), Mt 28:19.

An early uncial manuscript (5th Century) has βαπτισαντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και υϊου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis: Greek Transcriptions (International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), 2012), Mt 28:19.

Found NET Bible study note about Eusebius:
Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275–88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Mt 28:19.

Research also noted Baptism in Acts has the Name of "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" (instead of the three in Matthew 28:19)

Keep Smiling

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
The point here is that prior to the conception and birth, our children existed in the form of "word" in our plan (they were not already alive somewhere in some way), and this our "word" became flesh with the conception and birth of the child.

Concur with similarity to the One True God's Holy redemption plan from sin that existed prior to creation of the world.

And who was the central person in that plan? the human Messiah? of what is a plan made up? of thoughts and WORD(s)?

In a similar manner, One True God became the Father when The Word (eternal God) was conceived as a human child.

The Word is not the eternal God ... it is what is in God's foreknowledge, in God's plan, which in the form of word(s) was then revealed and made known and eventually, when the time was fulfilled, "became flesh" when what was word became reality in the conception and birth of the human being Jesus.

Greek grammar shows John 1:1 The Word quality was being God (θεός) in the beginning, which is different than foreknowledge (προγινώσκω).

Where is there anything about "word quality was being God" ??? The word "quality" - as you seem to call it - was WORD (thought)! And knowledge is contained in WORD(s), thoughts, etc.
As for Greek grammar, it has nothing to do with "word quality being (is) God" ...

My Logos library has many Greek lexicons (e.g. BDAG3, LSJ9, Brill's Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek); for θεός none of my Greek lexicons have foreknowledge in the definition of God.

Of course not, because you are the one who is thinking incorrectly ... nobody said that "God" = "foreknowledge", yet YOU made such a (non-existing) connection.

1Pe 1:20 declares that the Messiah (Christ Jesus) was FOREKNOWN (existed in God's foreknowledge of God's plan) ... this same truth is expressed in different wording in John 1:1 ... can it get any more simple?

The essence of God is more than The Word while all the essence of The Word is being God.

Where is there anything in John 1 about "the essence of God" ??

See, you are reading and understanding everything through TRINITARIAN theology colored glasses, and you are basing your conclusions on TRINITY doctrine rather than basing your reading on what Scripture actually says.

This discussion has helped me with non-biblical terminology for explaining the divine nature of God. Prior to the world being created, God the Will and God The Word existed as One with Holy redemption plan from sin: God the Will became God the Father (today in Psalm 2:7) when God the Word became God the Son by becoming a Holy human baby. Humanly amazed and Thankful for God transforming God the Word (from His throne in heaven) into a tiny human baby (in a virgin's womb on earth).

I would like to say that none of such ideas is even remotely related to what I have mentioned in my various posts.

Husband & Wife becoming one flesh Genesis 2:24 reflects design of intimacy between God the Will (Father) and God the Word (Son). In John 10:30 Jesus said: "I and The Father are One." Children obeying their parents Ephesians 6:1-3 reflects God the Holy Spirit obeying God the Father and God the Son.
Thankful for all nature declaring the Glory of God that includes a number of trio's:

• State of Matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas
• Primary Colors: Red, Yellow, Blue
• Atom: Proton, Neutron, Electron

From where are such non-biblical ideas coming?

No, this is not literally true as the child spoken of in Mt 1:23 was NOT himself God who had become a human baby ... God (the One Who Alone is true God .. Jesus' Father in heaven !!) was with His people by means of the child who was to be God's Messiah.
God does not become a human baby !! The "nature" of God is not "word", but SPIRIT (in contrast to "flesh and blood" which is the nature of humans.

Seriously puzzled by fuzzy interpretation when literal meaning of John 1:14 "The Word became flesh" fits One True God's plan for Holy redemption from sin.

You are seriously puzzled? Hmn ... I don't quite know what I am when reading your above comments ...

After Thomas physically touched resurrected body of Jesus, he proclaimed "My Lord and My God!" John 10:28 If Jesus knew that he is not truly God, then Thomas should have been rebuked. Instead Jesus received Godly worship from Thomas

God is then a physical person? ANd I thought from believing Jesus' very own words in John 4:24 that God was SPIRIT ... hmn, how stupid have I been ...

Actually, I am weeping at reading in your post what Trinitarian doctrine does to a person who appears to be seeking to please the true God and live in a godly manner in accordance with God's truth as revealed in Scripture. I am, once again, rather angry at the distortion and the sly lies planted into the hearts and minds of people by Trinity proponents ...

Likewise weeping for a hermeneutic that causes Truth of God to be hidden/missed, which prevents a personal relationship with Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, Priest, Friend, ...

And yet, YOU follow and propagate exactly that theology which does away with the fundamental truth that there is only ONE Who Alone is true GOD, and in your above comments even introduced a few more "Gods", namely "God the Will" and "God the Word" to your three Gods of "God the Father", "God the Son", "God the Holy Ghost".

Apologies for my lack of knowledge about Trinity proponents.

?? You yourself are one of the trinity proponents, plus perhaps even more ... see paragraph above.

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:

I do remember that passage very well, have studied it in detail and have read quite a fwe commentary articles concerning it .... in particular about the discrepancy between the wording in Mt 28:19 and the wording found in records in Acts where the apostles carried out Jesus' commission but never once used that wording. Already at Pentecost, only a few days after Jesus had spoken those words, Peter seems to have either forgotten what Jesus had commanded or he took the liberty to change Jesus' command ....

The difficulty appears to be caused in that after the council of Nicea in 325 AD, the wording in Mt 28:19 was changed from " .... make disciples of all nations IN MY NAME" and a baptism formular was inserted with " ... baptizing them in the name of the Fathere, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

What textual variant manuscript(s) can you offer for alleged Matthew 28:19 change ?
...
...
Found NET Bible study note about Eusebius:
Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19,” ZNW 2 (1901): 275–88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Mt 28:19.

That study note actually mentions the variant readings, which are not in any of the existing mss, which all date from after the council of Nicea. And, of course, trinitarian commentators will endeavor to do away with such quotations and possible evidence of a different reading in favor of propagating or maintaining their trinity beliefs.

The interesting point about the different wording found in quotes and allusions to Mt 28:19 in the earlier (prior to the council of Nicea) writings of Eusebius is that they indicate that Eusebius may have been quoting from mss which did in fact have that wording and which no longer exist.

Research also noted Baptism in Acts has the Name of "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" (instead of the three in Matthew 28:19)

And this point is for me the far weightier matter in favor of disregarding the wording found in all the mss which date from after the council of Nicea. Such internal evidence from within Scripture I count to be of far greater importance than text variants, etc.

As I mentioned before, NONE of the baptisms in Acts, which are recordings of how the apostles carried out Jesus' commandments ... and I don't believe Peter forgot what Jesus commanded or changed what Jesus coimmanded within a few days/weeks.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:
That study note actually mentions the variant readings, which are not in any of the existing mss, which all date from after the council of Nicea.

Four early church examples that predate Nicean councils by over a hundred years:
Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1
“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.”
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 says, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’”

As I mentioned before, NONE of the baptisms in Acts, which are recordings of how the apostles carried out Jesus' commandments ... and I don't believe Peter forgot what Jesus commanded or changed what Jesus coimmanded within a few days/weeks.

Didache is the teaching of the twelve Apostles (Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων)

Keep Smiling

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
That study note actually mentions the variant readings, which are not in any of the existing mss, which all date from after the council of Nicea.

Four early church examples that predate Nicean councils by over a hundred years:

And none of them has the authority of Scripture ... those works are rather a testimony to how early the early church was infected by philosophies and pagan religion with "church fathers" with such background establishing themselves as "authorities" in matters of church practice.

As I mentioned before, NONE of the baptisms in Acts, which are recordings of how the apostles carried out Jesus' commandments ... and I don't believe Peter forgot what Jesus commanded or changed what Jesus coimmanded within a few days/weeks.

Didache is the teaching of the twelve Apostles (Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων)

Have a look at the Wikipedia article which - even though in some regards not of a scholarly level does in fact provide some interesting information regarding the origin and date of this work ... which has been included among other "spurious writings"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
That study note actually mentions the variant readings, which are not in any of the existing mss, which all date from after the council of Nicea.

Four early church examples that predate Nicean councils by over a hundred years:

And none of them has the authority of Scripture ... those works are rather a testimony to how early the early church was infected by philosophies and pagan religion with "church fathers" with such background establishing themselves as "authorities" in matters of church practice.

Writings of Eusebius are also not scripture. Also Eusebius had a tendency to short quote scripture when rest of verse was not needed for contextual point. All Greek manuscripts have "Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19
?? Was Jesus infected when He gave the Baptism command in Matthew 28:19 ??
(no confusion is found in any scripture manuscript)

Two more early church examples prior to Constantine and Nicean councils in the 4th century:
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...”

Keep Smiling

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
And none of them has the authority of Scripture ... those works are rather a testimony to how early the early church was infected by philosophies and pagan religion with "church fathers" with such background establishing themselves as "authorities" in matters of church practice

?? Was Jesus infected when He gave the Baptism command in Matthew 28:19 ??
(no confusion is found in any scripture manuscript)

I believe that the apostles carried out Jesus' commandment, and the records in Acts all unanimously show that there was NOT ONE baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" ... which is very strange IF Jesus had commanded "to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

The apostles behavior, starting with Peter on the day of Pentecost, only a few days after Jesus had given the command, would be disobedience and a change of Jesus' commandment.

IF we understand that the apostles correctly carried out Jesus' command, then there must be a textual problem with what we currently have as text for Jesus' command in Mt 28:19. The question then is, if there is any indication anywhere that would point to the possibility of a text wording which would be in harmony with what the apostles did. And indeed, secondary evidence is found in early (prior to Nicea) writings of the church historian Eusebius.

All currently known NT mss that contain Mt 28:19 have the "Trinitarian version" , but all these stem from a time after the council of Nicea when Trinity doctrine was pushed on the church.

The question is: What possibly happened in the early centurues resulting in this situation of producing a discrepancy between what supposedly were Jesus' very important words and the apostles baptism practise as recorded in Acts??

Two more early church examples prior to Constantine and Nicean councils in the 4th century:
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...”

Your quotations from early non-biblical writings demonstrate what happened .... shortly after the death of the original apostles, baptism practices were introduced by influential formerly mostly Greek "converts" to Christianity which display "nominally adjusted" practices from their previous pagan religious affiliations. This situation developed within 2 centuries into a big controversy regarding a number of related issues, ending eventually in the church councils under direction by political power establishing the later introduced Trinity doctrine as binding for the church in place of what Jesus and his apostles actually had taught.

The Christian church at large had fallen victim to apostasy ... and this self-inflicted wound has cost the lives of many ever since.

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
And none of them has the authority of Scripture ... those works are rather a testimony to how early the early church was infected by philosophies and pagan religion with "church fathers" with such background establishing themselves as "authorities" in matters of church practice

?? Was Jesus infected when He gave the Baptism command in Matthew 28:19 ??
(no confusion is found in any scripture manuscript)

I believe that the apostles carried out Jesus' commandment, and the records in Acts all unanimously show that there was NOT ONE baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" ... which is very strange IF Jesus had commanded "to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Concur Acts does not explicitly document what was said during many baptism events: Acts 2:41, 8:12-13, 8:38, 9:18, 18:8, 22:16

The apostles behavior, starting with Peter on the day of Pentecost, only a few days after Jesus had given the command, would be disobedience and a change of Jesus' commandment.

In Acts 2, the believers being baptized were Jews who were in Jerusalem to worship God for the festival of Firstfruits (Sfirat HaOmer, "counting of the omer") after the first barley harvest Leviticus 23:9-14
Matthew 28:19 begins with "πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη," (textual variant ⸀οὖν is not in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform')

Michael W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Lexham Press; Society of Biblical Literature, 2011–2013), Mt 28:19.

NIDTTE entry for ἔθνος includes reference to Septuagint (LXX) translation of Hebrew into Greek:
JL 1 In the LXX ἔθνος occurs almost 1000×, esp. in Isaiah and Ezekiel (c. 100× each), and more than 700 of the occurrences are in the pl. Out of approx. 750 instances where ἔθνος translates a Heb. term, some 500× it is the noun גּוֹי H1580, which, when used in the pl., usually means “non-Jews, Gentiles,” sometimes with the nuance “the heathen” (e.g., Ps 79:1 [LXX 78:1]; Jer 10:2; the Vulg. renders with Lat. gentes, whence the Eng. term Gentiles). In over 130 instances ἔθνος renders עַם II H6639 (a term much more freq. transl. with λαός G3295; the reason for choosing one or the other Gk. noun has to be examined on a case-by-case basis and is not always clear). The adj. ἐθνικός does not occur in the LXX.

Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 89.

IF we understand that the apostles correctly carried out Jesus' command, then there must be a textual problem with what we currently have as text for Jesus' command in Mt 28:19. The question then is, if there is any indication anywhere that would point to the possibility of a text wording which would be in harmony with what the apostles did. And indeed, secondary evidence is found in early (prior to Nicea) writings of the church historian Eusebius.

Eusebius had a tendency to short quote scripture when rest of verse was not needed for contextual point: e.g. baptism. Only one questionable witness is not enough evidence to establish manuscript word tampering. Changing all manuscripts and translations in many parts of the world with identical text would have been physically challenging to do without leaving any traces of word changes.

All currently known NT mss that contain Mt 28:19 have the "Trinitarian version" , but all these stem from a time after the council of Nicea when Trinity doctrine was pushed on the church.

Syriac Peshitto is probably the earliest translation of the New Testament ever made, which has:
19 Go ye, therefore, and instructe all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Horace L. Hastings and Isaac H. Hall, The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto, trans. James Murdock, Ninth Edition. (Boston: H. L. Hastings & Sons, 1915), Mt 28:19.

The question is: What possibly happened in the early centurues resulting in this situation of producing a discrepancy between what supposedly were Jesus' very important words and the apostles baptism practise as recorded in Acts??

In Acts 2 and 19, Jews were being baptized. Acts 10 is a special case of Gentiles (non-Jews) being baptized in the name of Jesus for symbolic identification of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Special messages from God were recorded about Acts 10 story that included Holy Spirit being given to Gentiles by God before water baptism (immersion).

Two more early church examples prior to Constantine and Nicean councils in the 4th century:
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...”

Your quotations from early non-biblical writings demonstrate what happened .... shortly after the death of the original apostles, baptism practices were introduced by influential formerly mostly Greek "converts" to Christianity which display "nominally adjusted" practices from their previous pagan religious affiliations. This situation developed within 2 centuries into a big controversy regarding a number of related issues, ending eventually in the church councils under direction by political power establishing the later introduced Trinity doctrine as binding for the church in place of what Jesus and his apostles actually had taught.
The Christian church at large had fallen victim to apostasy ... and this self-inflicted wound has cost the lives of many ever since.

Deuteronomy 19:15 includes "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Without credible witness testimony, this conjecture is a cunning and crafty deception from the father of lies.

Keep Smiling

[Deleted User]

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
I believe that the apostles carried out Jesus' commandment, and the records in Acts all unanimously show that there was NOT ONE baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" ... which is very strange IF Jesus had commanded "to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Concur Acts does not explicitly document what was said during many baptism events: Acts 2:41, 8:12-13, 8:38, 9:18, 18:8, 22:16

So you now "blame" the writer of Acts because he did not explicitly or fully document what happened at baptism events in order to maintain the more than unusual one textual reading with a Trinity formula as being correct?

The apostles behavior, starting with Peter on the day of Pentecost, only a few days after Jesus had given the command, would be disobedience and a change of Jesus' commandment.

In Acts 2, the believers being baptized were Jews who were in Jerusalem to worship God for the festival of Firstfruits (Sfirat HaOmer, "counting of the omer") after the first barley harvest Leviticus 23:9-14
Matthew 28:19 begins with "πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη," (textual variant ⸀οὖν is not in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform')

Since when would that have something to do with what Jesus commanded? Are you suggesting that perhaps the writer of Matthew did not explicitly document what Jesus commanded, and that Jesus gave a separate - however not recorded - command for baptism of Jews ??

IF we understand that the apostles correctly carried out Jesus' command, then there must be a textual problem with what we currently have as text for Jesus' command in Mt 28:19. The question then is, if there is any indication anywhere that would point to the possibility of a text wording which would be in harmony with what the apostles did. And indeed, secondary evidence is found in early (prior to Nicea) writings of the church historian Eusebius.

Eusebius had a tendency to short quote scripture when rest of verse was not needed for contextual point: e.g. baptism.

How do you not about Eusebius' "tendency"?? Reading the allusions or quotes in his writings in which he refers to Mt 28:19, it does not quite seem a tendency but rather a clear simple quoting of whatever mss he had available to him at the time.

Only one questionable witness is not enough evidence to establish manuscript word tampering. Changing all manuscripts and translations in many parts of the world with identical text would have been physically challenging to do without leaving any traces of word changes.

For one, all the records regarding baptism in Acts witness plainly to what Eusebius has!!
Furthermore, there were not that many mss in many parts of the world ...one should not make the mistake of thinking along the lines of our world today, etc.

All currently known NT mss that contain Mt 28:19 have the "Trinitarian version" , but all these stem from a time after the council of Nicea when Trinity doctrine was pushed on the church.

Syriac Peshitto is probably the earliest translation of the New Testament ever made, which has:
19 Go ye, therefore, and instructe all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

There are questions about the dating of existing Aramaic mss as well, and also about so-called "Peshitto" vs "Peshitta" mss.

The question is: What possibly happened in the early centurues resulting in this situation of producing a discrepancy between what supposedly were Jesus' very important words and the apostles baptism practise as recorded in Acts??

In Acts 2 and 19, Jews were being baptized. Acts 10 is a special case of Gentiles (non-Jews) being baptized in the name of Jesus for symbolic identification of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Special messages from God were recorded about Acts 10 story that included Holy Spirit being given to Gentiles by God before water baptism (immersion).

So what then? The apostles acted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, never preached a Trinity, never claimed to teach or do anything else in the name of the Trinity, etc ...

Your quotations from early non-biblical writings demonstrate what happened .... shortly after the death of the original apostles, baptism practices were introduced by influential formerly mostly Greek "converts" to Christianity which display "nominally adjusted" practices from their previous pagan religious affiliations. This situation developed within 2 centuries into a big controversy regarding a number of related issues, ending eventually in the church councils under direction by political power establishing the later introduced Trinity doctrine as binding for the church in place of what Jesus and his apostles actually had taught.
The Christian church at large had fallen victim to apostasy ... and this self-inflicted wound has cost the lives of many ever since.

Deuteronomy 19:15 includes "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Without credible witness testimony, this conjecture is a cunning and crafty deception from the father of lies.

Of course, what I write is a deception from the father of lies ... The Trinity dogma could not possibly be such a thing, could it??

Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus

@Wolfgang said:

@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:

@Wolfgang said:
I believe that the apostles carried out Jesus' commandment, and the records in Acts all unanimously show that there was NOT ONE baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" ... which is very strange IF Jesus had commanded "to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Concur Acts does not explicitly document what was said during many baptism events: Acts 2:41, 8:12-13, 8:38, 9:18, 18:8, 22:16

So you now "blame" the writer of Acts because he did not explicitly or fully document what happened at baptism events in order to maintain the more than unusual one textual reading with a Trinity formula as being correct?

Apologies for my lack of desire to "blame" Lord God Almighty for what was Holy inspired for authors to write in original languages. Praying to God for understanding followed by serious study (along with Praise & Worship).

The apostles behavior, starting with Peter on the day of Pentecost, only a few days after Jesus had given the command, would be disobedience and a change of Jesus' commandment.

In Acts 2, the believers being baptized were Jews who were in Jerusalem to worship God for the festival of Firstfruits (Sfirat HaOmer, "counting of the omer") after the first barley harvest Leviticus 23:9-14
Matthew 28:19 begins with "πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη," (textual variant ⸀οὖν is not in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform')

Since when would that have something to do with what Jesus commanded? Are you suggesting that perhaps the writer of Matthew did not explicitly document what Jesus commanded, and that Jesus gave a separate - however not recorded - command for baptism of Jews ??

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Prophecies about Jewish people (e.g. Hosea 1:10-11, Daniel 9:24, ...) remained in effect when Jesus spoke baptism command in Matthew 28:19

IF we understand that the apostles correctly carried out Jesus' command, then there must be a textual problem with what we currently have as text for Jesus' command in Mt 28:19. The question then is, if there is any indication anywhere that would point to the possibility of a text wording which would be in harmony with what the apostles did. And indeed, secondary evidence is found in early (prior to Nicea) writings of the church historian Eusebius.

Eusebius had a tendency to short quote scripture when rest of verse was not needed for contextual point: e.g. baptism.

How do you not about Eusebius' "tendency"?? Reading the allusions or quotes in his writings in which he refers to Mt 28:19, it does not quite seem a tendency but rather a clear simple quoting of whatever mss he had available to him at the time.

Apologies since should have searched Eusebius resources for baptizing earlier:
But what in the world was this gospel instead of which there was no other one, if not, I suppose, that very gospel that indeed it is recorded that the Savior publicly proclaimed when he was handing it over to his disciples, saying, “Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and (10) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”? For he alone through the mystical regeneration has given to us this grace of the knowledge of the holy Trinity, since neither Moses nor any prophet provided this to the people of old. For it was fitting for the Son of God alone to proclaim to all human beings the paternal grace, since indeed, “The law was given through Moses,” but only through “Jesus Christ,” as through (11) an “only-begotten Son,” did “grace and truth” come. For this reason rightly did the one [Moses], in the manner of a tutor, hand over to the people of old in their infancy “elements of the beginning of the ways of God,” on the one hand prohibiting [the] error of polytheism, while on the other, announcing the knowledge of one God. But the saving grace, which provides to us a certain transcendent and angelic knowledge, unveiled for all to see the ancient mystery that had been hidden in silence from the people of old, announcing that the very God who is beyond the universe [and] who was known to the men of old is at the same time God and Father of the only-begotten Son, supplying as well the power of the Holy Spirit through the Son to those (12) deemed worthy. Thus the Church of God received and preserves the holy, blessed, and mystical Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as its saving hope through the regeneration in Christ. And this was the gospel that the great Apostle testifies it is not lawful to change “for another gospel [though] there is no other” still up to the present through the letter to them, crying out to [the] Galatians, “Even if we or an angel from heaven proclaims to you a gospel other than you received, let him be anathema,” commanding [them] long ago, as is right, not to heed either bishops or rulers or teachers if one of them should distort the true statement of the faith. (13) But who was this [man] who teaches [us] to know God as Father and hands over [to us] the knowledge of a Son of God and the zeal to participate in a Holy Spirit? Indeed, these things would be the distinguishing features of Christians alone, this being the way in which, I think, the (14) holy Church of God distinguishes itself from the Jewish way [of life]. For as that way [of life] rejected the polytheistic and Greek error by [the] confession of one God, so also the exceptional knowledge concerning the Son that belongs to the Church introduced something greater and more complete, teaching [human beings] to know the same God as Father of an only-begotten Son, a Son who is truly existing and living and subsisting. In saying, “For as the Father has life in himself, so also he has given to the Son to have life in himself,” the only-begotten of God himself taught [this], (15) so that the Father is truly Father (not being called so only in name, nor having acquired the title falsely, but [being] in truth and deed Father of an only-begotten Son) and also the Son is truly Son. But he who supposes that the Son is a mere word and testifies that he is only Word and many times says this very thing, that he is nothing other than Word, remaining within the Father while he is resting but being active in the crafting of the creation, just like our word that rests when we are silent but is active when we are speaking, would clearly agree with a certain Jewish and human conception [of the Word], but deny the true Son of God.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology, trans. Kelley McCarthy Spoerl and Markus Vinzent, vol. 135, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017), 77–79.

Only one questionable witness is not enough evidence to establish manuscript word tampering. Changing all manuscripts and translations in many parts of the world with identical text would have been physically challenging to do without leaving any traces of word changes.

For one, all the records regarding baptism in Acts witness plainly to what Eusebius has!!

See above Chapter 1 snippet from "Against Marcellus" by Eusebius of Caesarea.

Furthermore, there were not that many mss in many parts of the world ...one should not make the mistake of thinking along the lines of our world today, etc.

Wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta#Syriac_New_Testament provided idea to search Eusebius resources for Hegesippus (along with Matthew 28), which found a syrian document thought to be written ~324:
We have already seen, that the first portion of this prophetical week so divided, necessarily falls within the period of the Apostolical preaching: and also, from the words of our Lord, that the (extreme) End should not come until the Gospel had been “preached throughout the whole world, for a testimony to all nations.” Now the commission with its grounds, given by our Lord to His Disciples, is, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Go YE therefore, and TEACH ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” (Matt. 28:18, 19.) In Mark (16:15) it is given in these words: “Go YE into ALL THE WORLD, and preach the Gospel TO EVERY CREATURE.” Then follows a recital of the powers they should possess, of the signs that should accompany them, and of the saving results to those who should believe. In the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 1:8), our Lord says to His Disciples, “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall BE WITNESSES UNTO ME, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea; and in Samaria, and UNTO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH.” There can be no doubt perhaps, that the Disciples themselves were here meant; that they did receive this power from above; that the signs and wonders here mentioned, did attend their preaching; that they did so preach in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, and Samaria, and in foreign nations; and that they actually did become witnesses unto Christ, even unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea on the Theophanīa or Divine Manifestation of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, trans. Samuel Lee (Cambridge; London: Cambridge University Press; Duncan and Malcolm, 1843), cxvi–cxvii.

All currently known NT mss that contain Mt 28:19 have the "Trinitarian version" , but all these stem from a time after the council of Nicea when Trinity doctrine was pushed on the church.

Syriac Peshitto is probably the earliest translation of the New Testament ever made, which has:
19 Go ye, therefore, and instructe all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

There are questions about the dating of existing Aramaic mss as well, and also about so-called "Peshitto" vs "Peshitta" mss.

Wikipedia article mentions some New Testament books (e.g. Gospels) in the Syriac Peshitta could date in the second century.

The question is: What possibly happened in the early centurues resulting in this situation of producing a discrepancy between what supposedly were Jesus' very important words and the apostles baptism practise as recorded in Acts??

In Acts 2 and 19, Jews were being baptized. Acts 10 is a special case of Gentiles (non-Jews) being baptized in the name of Jesus for symbolic identification of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Special messages from God were recorded about Acts 10 story that included Holy Spirit being given to Gentiles by God before water baptism (immersion).

So what then? The apostles acted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, never preached a Trinity, never claimed to teach or do anything else in the name of the Trinity, etc ...

Jews already "knew" a part of the Triune God so only needed to trust in Yeshua.

Your quotations from early non-biblical writings demonstrate what happened .... shortly after the death of the original apostles, baptism practices were introduced by influential formerly mostly Greek "converts" to Christianity which display "nominally adjusted" practices from their previous pagan religious affiliations. This situation developed within 2 centuries into a big controversy regarding a number of related issues, ending eventually in the church councils under direction by political power establishing the later introduced Trinity doctrine as binding for the church in place of what Jesus and his apostles actually had taught.
The Christian church at large had fallen victim to apostasy ... and this self-inflicted wound has cost the lives of many ever since.

Deuteronomy 19:15 includes "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Without credible witness testimony, this conjecture is a cunning and crafty deception from the father of lies.

Of course, what I write is a deception from the father of lies ... The Trinity dogma could not possibly be such a thing, could it??

Your words about deception ring true.

Keep Smiling