Sir,

I am willing to go as far as to say the Jesus Christ is divine but I will not go so far as to call him the same name as I do the Father.  Sure, He is as close to a divine Father that I will ever be able to wrap my mind around.  But He explicitly, through His own testimony says that His Father is greater than He.  And anything else blurs the line of distinction and casts a shadow of trinitarian fogginess as to how the divine order works.  The Godhead should not be confounded by trinitarian error.  I must concede that I do not know all there is on this subject and I will let the Lord lead me where He may.   

As to your explanation of MAtthew 28:19 being quoted by the early church fathers earlier than the 3rd century, I am sure you are right, but it is not the same reading as the one in our bibles now.  the text originally says to baptize in the name of Jesus, or the ending is omitted altogether.  It goes along with the three text in first John sir.  Check for yourself.  If you have any quotes for me to see, proving your point, I would love to see it.

Dennis

Newbie,

Of course God, through the indwelling spirit, oversaw the work.  As to what was done before my time, and why, I have not the whole story yet.  I believe there is a quotation in the SOP that says something to the effect that the Bible writers were inspired but at certain times during translation, the scribes inserted things that suited their own ideas.  This does not do much for ones confidence, but make sure we are matching scripture with scriputre and we can know where we ought to be standing.  Is this enough comfort for your trouble Newbie?

Dennis

Here is the website where I read the information:

http://www.geocities.com/fdocc3/quotations.htm

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"   The 1917 Scofield note on this verse states: "The word is in the singular, the "name," not names. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one triue God. It affirms: (1) That God is one."

     Is this true? Is this Scriptural proof of a trinity?  Let's dig down past the surface of this text and get a little deeper into a study of this matter.  

     Concerning these words, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," noted Bible scholar, E.W. Bullinger, in his Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp.47, 48, states: "These words are contained in every Greek MS. [editor's note: MS. = manuscript] known, and are, therefore, on documentary evidence, beyond suspicion: but yet there is one great difficulty with regard to them.

     "The difficulty is that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus."

     Is this true?  Let's examine the Scriptures to prove all things.

Acts 2:38  "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."   [Baptism is to be performed in His name for the remission of sins because "...he had by himself purged our sins..." (Hebrews 1:3)].

Acts 8:16  "For as yet he [it] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 10:48  "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

Acts 19:5  "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Acts 22:16  ". . . arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

1Cor 1:12-15  "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.  Is Christ divided?  was Paul crucified for you?  or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?  I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."

[Editor’s note: Paul is implying here that the few baptisms that he performed there, without the use of water, but rather in spirit, as explained in Mk. 1:8 and in many other places, were all done in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified for us. Paul was referring to Jesus Christ---in whose name, he baptized spiritually the disciples.]

1Cor 6:11 "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Some other Scriptures to consider include:

Rom 6:3  "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? "

Gal 3:27  "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

NOTE: In Matt 28:19, the word translated "in" in the phrase "in the name of..." is the Greek word "eis" which means "into."  The above two scriptures show what we are truly to be baptized into---not the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit ---but, into Christ and His death.  "This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24)--'for they baptise not into the trinity, but into the death of Christ.'"  (Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism).

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom [which] the Father will send in my name . . . "  [Note: How does one receive the holy spirit? In the name of Jesus!]

Luke 24:47 "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."  

[Note: This verse ties directly with Matt 28:19 (preaching the Gospel among all nations) and Acts 2:38 (repentance and remission of sins, which comes in the name of Jesus Christ), and as we see here, both are to be done in the name of Jesus Christ---not in the name of a "triune god".]

     In the light of Scripture, we see baptism was never performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy ghost," but rather, in the name of Jesus Christ alone.  Bullinger comments, "It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text."

     "It is a question, therefore, whether we have here something beyond the reach of science, or the powers of ordinary Textual Criticism.

     "As to the Greek MSS., there are none beyond the fourth Century [Of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus---BOTH CORRUPT.  All other known Greek MSS. are from 5th Century and upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words." (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, p.48)

     Why is it that no Greek MSS. exist from prior to the fourth century?  It is due to the fact, that in 303 AD, Diocletian ordered all the sacred books to be burned.  Church historian, Eusebius, wrote, "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place." (H.E. viii 2).  This has left a large gap of three centuries (a time of great apostasy, which was already starting in Paul's and Jude's day - II Thes 2:7 & Jude 4) from which there are no known complete Greek MSS--from the first century in which Matthew recorded his Gospel account until the fourth and fifth centuries.  This left plenty of time for perversion of the text to occur.

     Fred Conybeare notes, "In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew." (Hibbert Journal, 1902, Fred C.Conybeare).

     Is it possible that the destroyed manuscripts and these missing pages may have included a different reading of Matthew 28:19---a reading that would agree with the above listed Scriptures which show baptisms performed in Christ's name alone?  Let us examine some of the writings of the so-called "early church fathers" who had access to older manuscripts.  Please note that we are NOT turning to them for any theological doctrine.  The "early church fathers" were pagan converts who did not truly convert, rather they "Christianized" their pagan doctrines by applying Christian names and ideas to them.  The only real value of these writings lies in the fact that their authors had access to these missing manuscripts, and they quoted from them quite frequently---so much so, that almost the entire New Testament could be gathered from these sources alone.  What text did their manuscripts contain?  How did they quote Matt 28:19,20?  We shall see.

      Concerning Matthew 28:19, Conybeare states, "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine.  I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.' "  (Hibbert Journal, F. Coneybeare).  Eusebius' rendering here (...make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME...) ties directly with Luke 24:47 as listed above (repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS  [Jesus'] NAME among all nations).

     Conybeare states, "I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901.  And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words 'in my name'.  Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p.136):

     "For he did not enjoin them to 'make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.'  For so great was the virtue attached to this appellation that the Apostle [Paul] says:  'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.'  It was right therefore that he [Jesus] should emphasise the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles: 'Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in My name.' "  (Hibbert Journal quoting Eusebius)

     Conybeare continues, "It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors.  Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice.  Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice."  (Hibbert Journal, p.105).

     This has led scholars to suspect that he was persuaded to replace the original text.  

     "The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise.  But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices.  The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities (Hibbert Journal)."

     Conybeare concludes: "It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of the words ' Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ' [in Matthew 28:19] " (Fred Conybeare).

     At least two texts have been found that make no mention of these things:

"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place." (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636)

"Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's Evan Bohan)

     Let's now examine some writings of the other early "church fathers."

     "The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century...dwells at length on 'the power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' " (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7).

     In the Shepherd of Hermas (dated approximately 120 AD), it notes, "Before man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he has received the seal [through baptism], he lays aside mortality and receives life."  It also states, "They are such as have heard the word and were willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (emphasis mine)

     The Hibbert Journal notes that Origen quotes Matt.28:19 three times---ending the quote abruptly at "nations" each time and "that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'In my Name,' struck out." (Conybeare).

     "In Justin Martyr, who wrote about AD 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgement of the ordinary text.

 The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p 258:  'God hath not yet afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.'  The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation of our text was that they ignored the formula 'baptising them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.'  But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes this difficulty: and Justin is seen to have had the same text ["in My name"] as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340." (Hibbert Journal  F. Conybeare - emphasis mine).

     "Justin quotes a saying of Christ, ...as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah ["Through the washing of repentance and knowledge of God, therefore, which was instituted for the sin of the people of God, as Isaiah says, we have believed, and we make known that the same baptism which he preached, and which is alone able to cleanse those who repent, is the water of life" (Justin's dialogue with Trypho)] and [so-called] Apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula.

This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional [trinitarian]text of Matthew 28:19." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).  

     Concerning Aphraates, of Nisibis,  Conybeare states, "There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider.  He is Aphraates, ...who wrote between 337 and 345.  He cites out text in a formal manner as follows:  'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.'  The last words appear to be a gloss of the Eusebian reading 'in my name.'  But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptise in the triune name.  Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible." (Conybeare).

     "Now Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century.  Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day.  If the Greek MS. there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them."

Even if the text is original, it is far a proof of trinity.

Dennis

Dennis,

Let me see if I get this right.  My little brain has trouble deciphering all of this at once.  God the Father is the supreme being and Jesus Christ is divine but came from the father in some divine way of duplication before the earth and heavens were ever created.  The holy spirit is their divine presence in a different form but not a separate person as we have been taught.  We are not to pray to the holy spirit.  We are to pray to God the Father through Jesus Christ his only Son.  In heaven before the earth was created God the Father was #1, Jesus was #2, and Lucifer was #3.  The holy spirit is not given a rank order here?  Lucifer understands the hierarchy better than we do and therefore resents the position of Jesus and sin begins to grown in his heart.  Satan continues to resent Jesus' position and will try and destroy any creation that Jesus has done via the Father.  We are to baptise in the Name of Jesus Christ who lived and died for us.  It seems to me that some of the apostolics might be closer to this truth than we are except they don't recognize the Father.

I'm still not sure that I accept all of this but I'm studying it carefully.

Thomas joins John in definitely declaring that Jesus Christ is God.

Hopefully i can post an article i wrote 4 years ago about this anti-trinitarian teaching up on the web soon. 

Ellen White also says that Jesus Christ is God.

Dennis,

I am glad you have made that declaration. This fits my first post and doesn't align with your earlier posts. This position is in accord with Scripture.

Blessings
love
Brendan

webmaster wrote:

---

Jesus has always been God, and did not receive his "deity" from anyone.

---

 Daniel,

I think that we need to revisit some scripture in order to get to the bottom of this impasse.  I hope we exhibit the humble spirit required in order to find this "unity" you speak of that supposedly unites the people of God.  By the way, I do not believe that to be true, but in a certain sense it could be, but only for the true people of God. Please explain these quotes in light of your above quotation:

John

5:19   Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 
  5:20   For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 
  5:21   For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. 
  5:22   For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 
  5:23   That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 
  5:24   Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 
  5:25   Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 
  5:26   For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 

Matthew:

  28:17   And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 
  28:18   And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 

John:

  10:28   And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. 
  10:29   My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. 
  10:30   I and [my] Father are one. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In proclaiming that Jesus did not receive his deity from anyone, you have all but destroyed the divine order of the godhead.  Without the Father, there is no Son, without the Son, there is no atonement, without the atonement (or shedding of blood), there is no remission of sins and therefore, there is no salvation for the souls of men.

If Jesus did not receive these things from His Father, why then did He proclaim that all these things were given unto Him Daniel?  Have we made the Lord Jesus out to be a liar?

Dennis

Brendan wrote:

---

Dennis, I am glad you have made that declaration. This fits my first post and doesn't align with your earlier posts. This position is in accord with Scripture. BlessingsloveBrendan

---

Brendan,

I have some questions for you also:

Who is the One true God Jesus is speaking of in this text:

John:

  17:1   These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 
  17:2   As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 
  17:3   And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 

Who is the One true God Paul is speaking of in these texts:

Brendan,

I have no anti-trinitarian group to associate with because there are none in my area   I already said that the deity of Christ is not in question...  But how is it so easy for us to confound the idea of the ONE true God with TWO then?  It is a lie if we believe such is it not?  For we are saying there are two Gods are we not?

Dennis

None of the texts put forth say anything about Jesus receiving his "deity" from the Father.

Many texts were quoted a while back showing that Jesus is God in the flesh.  Is this agreed on?

I suppose He is like a Father to us in the sense that He comofrts us and gives us spiritual victory and replenishment.  I just cannot get over the fact that the atonement makes no sense if one insists that He and His Father are the same being.  Is this what you are trying to say Daniel?  If not, then I could partly agree with your position.

Dennis

I believe exactly that way Gordon, except perhaps this one phrase: "His Son is neither inferior nor created", could be modified to say: "The Son said his Father is greater than he. Also, Jesus was not created".