The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

[Peterlag]

Peter that is just not true so don't buy into that one. It was quoted in 200 AD and that is not the 15th or 16th century! I'm not saying that they are three persons, just as I am not three people. But I was made in God's image which is spirit, soul and body. Those three are one. Jesus embodies them all and is God. After all the Holy Spirit was called the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8:9. That is Jesus also called the Spirit of God.

Quoted where in 200 AD?


Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

 

[charismaticlady]

Quoted where in 200 AD?

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

His name starts with a C if that will help and he quotes 1 John 5:7. Do you have the set of 10ish books of the Anti Nicene Fathers set? Those are the oldest just after the death of John. That's where I found it.

I don't know why you don't accept Jesus as God. Do you think He was a created being? Remember He was the burning bush and called Himself God there. That's why the Pharisees wanted to stone Him because He called Himself "I AM," one of God's name. You might be playing with fire, Peter, to not accept Jesus as God. Titus 2:13 did it for me, and I was shocked. But seeing as I have a close relationship with God and He teaches me His gospel and the New Covenant, and immediately answers any question I have, I think He would have corrected this belief. I remember the day I read Titus 2:13 and it was a rhema and seared my soul with that truth. So just ask Him. But read James 1:5-6 first.

 

[Peterlag]

His name starts with a C if that will help and he quotes 1 John 5:7. Do you have the set of 10ish books of the Anti Nicene Fathers set? Those are the oldest just after the death of John. That's where I found it.

I don't know why you don't accept Jesus as God. Do you think He was a created being? Remember He was the burning bush and called Himself God there. That's why the Pharisees wanted to stone Him because He called Himself "I AM," one of God's name. You might be playing with fire, Peter, to not accept Jesus as God. Titus 2:13 did it for me, and I was shocked. But seeing as I have a close relationship with God and He teaches me His gospel and the New Covenant, and immediately answers any question I have, I think He would have corrected this belief. I remember the day I read Titus 2:13 and it was a rhema and seared my soul with that truth. So just ask Him. But read James 1:5-6 first.

John 8:58...
Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

Here's a few examples if you would enjoy reading more...

So, they said to him “Who are you?”

Matthew 14:27
But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; {ego eimi} be not afraid.
And who did they identify him as - God? NOPE.
And those in the boat worshiped him, saying "Truly, you are the Son of God."
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Son of God.

Mark 14:61,62
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, “I am, {ego eimi}
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Messiah, the Son of the Blessed.

John 4:26
Jesus said unto her, “I that speak unto thee am he, {ego eimi}.
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Messiah.

John 9:9
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. {ego eimi}
Who is the blind man identifying as? The one who was healed.

Acts 10:21
Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he {ego eimi}
Who did Peter identify as? The one they were looking for.

"I am" - {ego eimi} is not a NAME. Yahweh is the God of Israel's name.
{ego eimi} - I am - is just a response of self-identification.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.

@Peterlag . Goodmorning...

I actually agree with you on this, coming from an opposite direction , but no matter.

This is correct. But this does not mean that there is no Trinity.

Without taking the time to write what I havve that proves your point... I will take the time for this and try to explain in a coherent way for your understanding.

First... the inauthenticity of 1 John 5:7 ... known as the Johannine Comma... does not make the Trinity inaccurate but it does require us to be precise about what the Terinity is and how it was derived.

Slowly carefully and honestly~

What is the Trinity and what does it do?

The Trinity is not the claim that the word Trinity appears in Scripture.... We all know and admit it does not.

also

The Trinity is not the claim there is one verse that spells it out explicity.


The Trinity is the claim that Scripture teaches three truths simultaneously:

1. There is one God

2.The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God

3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same person

If all three are taught in Scripture, then some kind of Trinitarian framework is unavoidable — even if the later creedal language is philosophical.

Whether you believe in the possibility of a Trinity or not you and I both generally agree with #1 and #3.... correct?

But have you ever considered if any of these 3 points can be seen and taught by scripture?

Let's have a look at each.

1 There is one God.

This is certainly uncontested because no matter if you are a Trin or not we all, as Christians believe in only one God.

Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Isaiah 45:5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

There is no debate here. I agree, and I believe you agree.... so now lets get to business on what you disagree with


2. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each identified as divine

---

The Father. Certainly no one in these forums can dispute that the Father... "our" Heavenly Father... is divine

Now enter

The Son

Is there proof in the sciptures??????

...........John 1:1 ~ “the Word was God” (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

..........John 20:28 ~ “My Lord and my God” (Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”)

.........Hebrews 1:8 ~ “Your throne, O God…” (But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.)

.........Colossians 2:9 ~ “the fullness of deity dwells bodily” (For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,)

This from Colossians is a very powerful statement of truth and proof.

These are not late texts. They appear in our earliest manuscripts.

So what about the Holy Spirit?

Holy Spirit

Often less discussed but still very present... and what exactly do scriptures say?

.........Acts 5:3–4 ~ lying to the Spirit = lying to God (But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the proceeds of the land? ...“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”)

........1 Corinthians 3:16 ~ God’s Spirit dwells in you (Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?)

.........2 Corinthians 3:17 ~ “the Lord is the Spirit” (Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.)

---

So you can see these three are personally distinct.

Scripture repeatedly shows relationship and interaction, not role-switching as those who believe all three are one forcing the one to change roles.

John 17~ Jesus prays to the Father ( specifically in verses 1-5, where he asks the Father to glorify him so that he may glorify the Father. This chapter contains the longest recorded prayer of Jesus in the Bible.)

John 3:16 ~ The Father sends the Son (“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.)

John 14:26 ~ The Father sends the Spirit in the Son’s name ( “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.)

John 1:1 ~ Jesus is with God ~ (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
( The Word/Jesus was pros ton theon )

These distinctions exist long before any later doctrinal debates.


Now I won;'t say you but others have said the "Trinity" feels "constructed" and my answer to that is simply because it is
a theological synthesis.

That IS NOT a flaw....... it IS how theology works.

"Say what?" you ask. Well, think of it this way.....

​

Scripture gives us the data while Theology gives us the model that fits the data without contradiction.

Are you still

The early church DID NOT invent the Trinity they were forced into it by the text when trying to avoid error on either side:

In Arianism Jesus is created and In Modalism Father/Son/Spirit are just masks!!!

Both of these collapse under biblical pressure.

Now enter the Johannine Comma and consider what it's removal its removal means when we actually lose a verse that reads like a creedal formula

Trivia time.....
(For those readers who dont know or have forgotten the Johannine Comma states... "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." And it appears the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and several older translations like the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Geneva Bible.... though
It does not appear in any extant copies of the Vulgate prior to AD 800. (Vawter, C.M. 411) The first two Greek translations of the New Testament produced by the scholar Erasmus lacked the Johannine Comma although he did include it into the 3rd edition of his Greek New Testament from the Vulgate)

So with it's removal we must admit the Trinity is not stated in a single proof-text ....... leaving the fact that We must argue it is cumulatively, not rhetorically....

Which is actually a strength, not a weakness.

Think of it this way.....Bad doctrine hides behind one verse. Good doctrine survives the removal of a bad one.

If we say things like.....“There is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ" meaning two distinct individuals.

That statement can be biblical (1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

But it becomes non-Trinitarian only if we also deny:

Christ’s pre-existence

Christ’s divine identity

Christ’s role in creation

Paul does not deny those — he presupposes them.


So the real dividing line is not: “Is the Trinity accurate?” or " Where is the proof of the Triinity" or " Why is Trinity" not in the bible.


But to ask....“Does Scripture force us to affirm divine plurality within monotheism?”

And Historically and textually, the answer is yes.


The Trinity is not a verse, it is a framework developed to faithfully account for everything Scripture says about God, Christ, and the Spirit. The removal of 1 John 5:7 removes a later explanatory gloss, not the biblical foundation of Trinitarian theology.

 

[charismaticlady]

John 8:58...
Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

Here's a few examples if you would enjoy reading more...

So, they said to him “Who are you?”

Matthew 14:27
But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying Be of good cheer; it is I; {ego eimi} be not afraid.
And who did they identify him as - God? NOPE.
And those in the boat worshiped him, saying "Truly, you are the Son of God."
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Son of God.

Mark 14:61,62
But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, “I am, {ego eimi}
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Messiah, the Son of the Blessed.

John 4:26
Jesus said unto her, “I that speak unto thee am he, {ego eimi}.
Who is Jesus identifying as? The Messiah.

John 9:9
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. {ego eimi}
Who is the blind man identifying as? The one who was healed.

Acts 10:21
Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he {ego eimi}
Who did Peter identify as? The one they were looking for.

"I am" - {ego eimi} is not a NAME. Yahweh is the God of Israel's name.
{ego eimi} - I am - is just a response of self-identification.

Do you believe that Jesus existed before Abraham?

 

[Peterlag]

Do you believe that Jesus existed before Abraham?

Of course not. How can someone exist before they were born?
I would like one verse that actually calls Jesus God the Son.

One verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
One verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
One verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
One verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
One verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
One verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[Peterlag]

@Peterlag . Goodmorning...

I actually agree with you on this, coming from an opposite direction , but no matter.

This is correct. But this does not mean that there is no Trinity.

Without taking the time to write what I havve that proves your point... I will take the time for this and try to explain in a coherent way for your understanding.

First... the inauthenticity of 1 John 5:7 ... known as the Johannine Comma... does not make the Trinity inaccurate but it does require us to be precise about what the Terinity is and how it was derived.

Slowly carefully and honestly~

What is the Trinity and what does it do?

The Trinity is not the claim that the word Trinity appears in Scripture.... We all know and admit it does not.

also

The Trinity is not the claim there is one verse that spells it out explicity.


The Trinity is the claim that Scripture teaches three truths simultaneously:

1. There is one God

2.The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God

3. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same person

If all three are taught in Scripture, then some kind of Trinitarian framework is unavoidable — even if the later creedal language is philosophical.

Whether you believe in the possibility of a Trinity or not you and I both generally agree with #1 and #3.... correct?

But have you ever considered if any of these 3 points can be seen and taught by scripture?

Let's have a look at each.

1 There is one God.

This is certainly uncontested because no matter if you are a Trin or not we all, as Christians believe in only one God.

Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Isaiah 45:5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
1 Corinthians 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

There is no debate here. I agree, and I believe you agree.... so now lets get to business on what you disagree with


2. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each identified as divine

---

The Father. Certainly no one in these forums can dispute that the Father... "our" Heavenly Father... is divine

Now enter

The Son

Is there proof in the sciptures??????

...........John 1:1 ~ “the Word was God” (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

..........John 20:28 ~ “My Lord and my God” (Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”)

.........Hebrews 1:8 ~ “Your throne, O God…” (But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.)

.........Colossians 2:9 ~ “the fullness of deity dwells bodily” (For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,)

This from Colossians is a very powerful statement of truth and proof.

These are not late texts. They appear in our earliest manuscripts.

So what about the Holy Spirit?

Holy Spirit

Often less discussed but still very present... and what exactly do scriptures say?

.........Acts 5:3–4 ~ lying to the Spirit = lying to God (But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the proceeds of the land? ...“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”)

........1 Corinthians 3:16 ~ God’s Spirit dwells in you (Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?)

.........2 Corinthians 3:17 ~ “the Lord is the Spirit” (Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.)

---

So you can see these three are personally distinct.

Scripture repeatedly shows relationship and interaction, not role-switching as those who believe all three are one forcing the one to change roles.

John 17~ Jesus prays to the Father ( specifically in verses 1-5, where he asks the Father to glorify him so that he may glorify the Father. This chapter contains the longest recorded prayer of Jesus in the Bible.)

John 3:16 ~ The Father sends the Son (“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.)

John 14:26 ~ The Father sends the Spirit in the Son’s name ( “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.)

John 1:1 ~ Jesus is with God ~ (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)
( The Word/Jesus was pros ton theon )

These distinctions exist long before any later doctrinal debates.


Now I won;'t say you but others have said the "Trinity" feels "constructed" and my answer to that is simply because it is
a theological synthesis.

That IS NOT a flaw....... it IS how theology works.

"Say what?" you ask. Well, think of it this way.....

​

Scripture gives us the data while Theology gives us the model that fits the data without contradiction.

Are you still View attachment 2695

The early church DID NOT invent the Trinity they were forced into it by the text when trying to avoid error on either side:

In Arianism Jesus is created and In Modalism Father/Son/Spirit are just masks!!!

Both of these collapse under biblical pressure.

Now enter the Johannine Comma and consider what it's removal its removal means when we actually lose a verse that reads like a creedal formula

Trivia time.....
(For those readers who dont know or have forgotten the Johannine Comma states... "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." And it appears the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and several older translations like the Douay-Rheims Bible and the Geneva Bible.... though
It does not appear in any extant copies of the Vulgate prior to AD 800. (Vawter, C.M. 411) The first two Greek translations of the New Testament produced by the scholar Erasmus lacked the Johannine Comma although he did include it into the 3rd edition of his Greek New Testament from the Vulgate)

So with it's removal we must admit the Trinity is not stated in a single proof-text ....... leaving the fact that We must argue it is cumulatively, not rhetorically....

Which is actually a strength, not a weakness.

Think of it this way.....Bad doctrine hides behind one verse. Good doctrine survives the removal of a bad one.

If we say things like.....“There is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ" meaning two distinct individuals.

That statement can be biblical (1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

But it becomes non-Trinitarian only if we also deny:

Christ’s pre-existence

Christ’s divine identity

Christ’s role in creation

Paul does not deny those — he presupposes them.


So the real dividing line is not: “Is the Trinity accurate?” or " Where is the proof of the Triinity" or " Why is Trinity" not in the bible.


But to ask....“Does Scripture force us to affirm divine plurality within monotheism?”

And Historically and textually, the answer is yes.


The Trinity is not a verse, it is a framework developed to faithfully account for everything Scripture says about God, Christ, and the Spirit. The removal of 1 John 5:7 removes a later explanatory gloss, not the biblical foundation of Trinitarian theology.

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it? I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said...

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[amazing grace]

Do you believe that Jesus existed before Abraham?

Hi chrismaticlady ---- As @Peterlag said and I agree - Of course not. How can someone exist before they were born? I just wanted to add although Jesus didn't literally exist before Abraham, he did preexist in the foreknowledge of God and before Abraham as in a promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:16-18 from God:

And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. And Galatians 3:16 clarifies:
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

So, that is how Jesus was before Abraham.

 

[FreeInChrist]

If there is a trinity then why not just come out and say it? Why do we have to jump all over the Bible cutting and pasting pieces of words that are scattered all over the Bible? Why not just teach it?

I will make it my life's goal to find out if You can tell me what I have been asking for years.

What was the purpose for Jesus to say. Matt 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

I know enough about how the Bible is written in the New Testament and in the Gospels to know if there was a trinity it would have been taught. The Gospels would have clearly said..

Verily, verily I say unto you that I am Jesus and I'm also God.

The Epistles would have writings like...

Yay, I Paul do testify that Jesus who is God came down from heaven to be a man for us. And we do know and testify that this same Jesus who you crucified is God. And so let us bow our knee to the one and only true God-Man Jesus Christ.

And yet there's nothing like that anywhere. Not in the Old or New Testament. Not even one complete verse like that.

 

[Peterlag]

I will make it my life's goal to find out if You can tell me what I have been asking for years.

What was the purpose for Jesus to say. Matt 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

You know... I'll do what I said and see if I can find anything... but I have almost gotten to the point of thinking the Bible might not be accurate in anything that is there.

I did a quick search and you are right.

First Inclusion of Matthew 28:19 in the Bible​

Early Manuscripts​

Matthew 28:19, which contains the Great Commission, is found in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. However, the specific wording of this verse as we know it today was not universally accepted until later.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus​

• Codex Sinaiticus: This is one of the oldest complete manuscripts of the Bible, dating to the 4th century. It includes Matthew 28:19 in its current form.
• Codex Vaticanus: Another important manuscript from the same period, also contains Matthew 28:19.

The King James Version​

The first widely recognized English translation that included Matthew 28:19 in its current form was the King James Version (KJV), published in 1611. This translation solidified the verse's place in English-speaking Christianity.

Historical Context​

The verse's inclusion in early manuscripts suggests it was part of the text from at least the 4th century. However, debates about its authenticity and whether it was a later interpolation have persisted among scholars.

In summary, while Matthew 28:19 appears in early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, its formal acceptance in English translations began with the King James Version in 1611.

Jesus never said it... fine. I dont care when it was started , because it should have been in the earliest or earliest manuscripts because any additions other then then hold no belief to me.

I did not know... Thank you for telling me....

But what is worse then that I have asked that question for years and you are the first to give me an answer....

Ill see if I can find a reason the Trinity is not there..... Ill let you know if I find anything

 

[Peterlag]

 

[Peterlag]

The Trinity does not come from Scripture...

It comes from the doctrine of the churches (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

Just a side note.... continuing on Matt 28:19

https://worldinsight.info/the-ethiopian-bible-a-broader-and-older-canon-that-challenges-the-standard-narrative/

The Ethiopian Bible, specifically the Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon, differs significantly from the versions familiar to most Western Christians. It offers a broader and older collection of texts, challenging the standard narrative of biblical history.

The Ethiopian Bible, rooted in the Ge’ez language, is one of the oldest Christian scriptural traditions. Manuscripts like the Garima Gospels date back to around 390–660 CE. This makes the Ethiopian tradition one of the earliest to preserve Christian scriptures. Unlike the Protestant Bible, which contains 66 books, or the Catholic Bible, which has 73, the Ethiopian Bible includes 81 books. This extensive collection reflects a scriptural tradition that predates many Western revisions.

By studying the Ethiopian Bible, scholars and believers alike gain a more complete view of early Christian thought. This tradition expands our understanding of biblical history, revealing stories and teachings that Western Christianity left behind. Whether one views these differences as omissions, refinements, or historical divergences, the Ethiopian Bible remains a vital and fascinating piece of Christian heritage.

There are a lot of links to them but then I looked for Matt 28:19 in their bible.

​

Text Overview​

Matthew 28:19 is part of the Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples. The verse emphasizes the importance of making disciples and baptizing them.

Amharic Translation​

Here is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from the Ethiopian Bible (Amharic):

• “እንግዲህ ሂዱና አሕዛብን ሁሉ በአብ በወልድና በመንፈስ ቅዱስ ስም እያጠመቃችኋቸው ያዘዝኋችሁንም ሁሉ እንዲጠብቁ እያስተማራችኋቸው ደቀ መዛሙርት አድርጓቸው፤ እነሆም እኔ እስከ ዓለም ፍጻሜ ድረስ ሁልጊዜ ከእናንተ ጋር ነኝ።”

Key Elements​

• Command to Go: Jesus commands His followers to go and make disciples.
• Baptism: Disciples are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
• Teaching: The verse also includes the instruction to teach the new disciples to observe all that Jesus commanded.

Now I looked also for the translation in the Ge'ez language as it is older then the Amharic...

I could not find much because it is a dead language

So I went to Gemini for original Ge'ez and English
In the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) Bible, Matthew 28:19 is part of the Great Commission. Ge'ez is the liturgical language of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churches.

Matthew 28:19 in Ge'ez​

ሑሩ፡ እንከ፡ ወመሐሩ፡ ኵሎ፡ አሕዛበ፡ ወአጥምቁ፡ በስመ፡ አብ፡ ወወልድ፡ ወመንፈስ፡ ቅዱስ።

---

Transliteration​

Huru enke wamaheru kwulo ahzaba wa'atméqu basma Ab wawald wamanfas qeddus.

English Translation​

"Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Word-for-Word Analysis​

• ሑሩ (Huru): Go (plural imperative).
• እንከ (Enke): Therefore / so / then.
• ወመሐሩ (Wamaheru): And teach / make disciples (from mahhara, meaning to teach).
• ኵሎ (Kwulo): All.
• አሕዛበ (Ahzaba): Nations / Gentiles.
• ወአጥምቁ (Wa'atméqu): And baptize them (plural imperative).
• በስመ (Basma): In the name of.
• አብ (Ab): Father.
• ወወልድ (Wawald): And Son.
• ወመንፈስ ቅዱስ (Wamanfas Qeddus): And Holy Spirit.

I asked for the age of the Ge'ez translation
The Ge'ez translation of Matthew 28:19 is one of the oldest in the world, with the earliest written evidence dating back to the late 4th to 6th centuries AD.
The translation of the Bible into Ge'ez occurred in two primary stages:

1. The Ancient "A-Text" (c. 350–600 AD)​

The initial translation of the Gospel of Matthew was completed by the 6th century at the latest, though many scholars believe the work began as early as the late 4th century.

• The Garima Gospels: These are the oldest surviving Ge'ez manuscripts, containing the complete text of Matthew. Radiocarbon dating on Garima 2 (the older of the two volumes) places it between 390–570 AD.
• Source: This early version, known as the A-text, was translated directly from Greek sources.
• Trinitarian Formula: Unlike some other ancient fragments or historical citations (such as those by Eusebius), the earliest Ge'ez manuscripts include the full Trinitarian formula ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit").

2. The Medieval "B-Text" (c. 13th–14th Century)​

The version often used in liturgical settings today is based on a medieval revision known as the B-text.

• Revision: This version was likely a 14th-century update of the older Ge'ez text, influenced by Arabic and Coptic translations.
• Standardization: This period of revision helped standardize the language into the "Classical Ge'ez" still used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church today.

Summary Table​

Text Type	Estimated Translation Date	Earliest Manuscript Evidence	Primary Source Language
A-Text	4th – 6th Century AD	Garima Gospels (c. 390–570 AD)	Greek
B-Text	13th – 14th Century AD	Dabra Māryām MS (14th Century)	Arabic/Ge'ez Revision

Gemini asked if I wanted to know how the Ge'ez text compares to the original Greek manuscripts of this verse....

Evaluating how the Ge'ez text compares to the original Greek manuscripts provides fascinating insight into the preservation of the Trinitarian formula in the Great Commission.
While some modern debates (like the ones on the apologetics forum you are viewing) question whether the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was an addition, the ancient Ge'ez manuscripts provide some of the strongest historical support for its early existence.

1. Textual Consistency​

• Greek Source: The oldest Ge'ez translation (the A-text) was translated directly from Greek.
• Full Formula: Unlike some other ancient versions where only "in my name" is cited, the earliest known Ge'ez manuscripts, such as the Garima Gospels (c. 390–570 AD), contain the complete Trinitarian formula exactly as it appears in major Greek codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

2. Comparison with Early Church Citations​

• The Eusebius Debate: A common point of comparison is the writing of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 AD). In his early works, he often quoted Matthew 28:19 as saying "make disciples... in my name," omitting the baptismal command and the Trinity.
• Ge'ez Priority: Because the Ge'ez translation began as early as the 4th century, it represents a textual tradition that was contemporary with or even predates some of the Greek manuscripts Eusebius would have used. The fact that the Ge'ez text includes the formula suggests it was firmly established in the Greek manuscripts reaching East Africa at that time.

3. Linguistic Preservation​

• Direct Translation: Because Ge'ez is a Semitic language, it often preserves certain nuances of the Greek word order or emphasis that can be lost in Latin or later European translations.
• Liturgical Stability: The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has used this specific Ge'ez wording in its liturgy for over 1,500 years, providing a "frozen" look at how the verse was understood in the late Roman/Byzantine era.

Comparison Summary​

Feature	Original Greek (Major Codices)	Ancient Ge'ez (A-Text)
Formula	Full Trinitarian Formula	Full Trinitarian Formula
Command	"Baptizing them" included	"Baptizing them" (wa'atméqu) included
Age	4th Century (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus)	late 4th – 6th Century (Garima)

Export to Sheets

Would you like me to look into the Amharic translation of this verse to see how the modern Ethiopian language differs from the ancient Ge'ez?

 

[FreeInChrist]

The Trinity does not come from Scripture...

It comes from the doctrine of the churches (and in most cases it's the first thing they teach) and then they begin to look for Scripture that supports such a concept. They do this by taking the verses out of context, or not understanding how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.

There's reasons why the Bible does not teach the Trinity in one whole paragraph in a few different places or a whole chapter or two on it. There's reasons why there's no teaching on why God would come to the earth as a man. There's reasons why there was never a debate about the Trinity in Scripture like we see with justification by works or who should be circumcised. Such an important subject matter like the Trinity and the Bible is silent on all of it.

And there's the spinning and twisting from the trinitarians who can't come up with one verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Trinitarians who can't come up with one verse that says why God would come to the earth as a man. Trinitarians who have to make up their own words that are not in the Bible. Words like Trinity, Deity, and Incarnated.

If any of this nonsense was true and since it's so important and a huge subject to Christianity and is necessary for salvation like many teach. Then it would have been taught by someone somewhere. And it is not.

Is that your final word?

 

[Wick Stick]

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. - Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus" page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/265AD – 339 AD) – Matthew 28:19 "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. In a particular section of his book he was addressing people that claim Jesus used sorcery to perform his miracles, and in his argument he quoted Mathew 28:19 that says "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name." Interesting that he doesn't say baptize, nor does he mention the trinity or a threesome of any kind.

to you for doing the research.

However, I think the point has been missed through most of this topic. Doing something "in the name of" someone, means to do it by their authority. To baptize "in the name of Jesus" means you're doing it at His command, as His ambassador. To do something "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" means precisely the same thing, because that name (singular), is Jesus.

 

[FreeInChrist]

to you for doing the research.

However, I think the point has been missed through most of this topic. Doing something "in the name of" someone, means to do it by their authority. To baptize "in the name of Jesus" means you're doing it at His command, as His ambassador. To do something "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" means precisely the same thing, because that name (singular), is Jesus.

This is true... but the question that is hanging out there is if some church added to the dcriptures to dhore up a Trinity claim
where does that leave the Trinity.

I always have used Matt 28:19 as a point that Jesus said..... but if He did not... then I wonder.

Even the Ethiopian stuff I just posted uses the name of the 3 and they also mention Trinity... but this is the only solid scripture that
mentions all three that seems like a solid proof.

You are right that "To do something "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" means precisely the same thing, because that name (singular), is Jesus." But if an added on... Jesus never said it at all.

Happy New Year if I get raptured before then LOL

 

[Peterlag]

to you for doing the research.

However, I think the point has been missed through most of this topic. Doing something "in the name of" someone, means to do it by their authority. To baptize "in the name of Jesus" means you're doing it at His command, as His ambassador. To do something "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" means precisely the same thing, because that name (singular), is Jesus.

Since God is Spirit. I see no need to mention Him twice.

 

[Peterlag]

Just a side note.... continuing on Matt 28:19

https://worldinsight.info/the-ethiopian-bible-a-broader-and-older-canon-that-challenges-the-standard-narrative/

The Ethiopian Bible, specifically the Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon, differs significantly from the versions familiar to most Western Christians. It offers a broader and older collection of texts, challenging the standard narrative of biblical history.

The Ethiopian Bible, rooted in the Ge’ez language, is one of the oldest Christian scriptural traditions. Manuscripts like the Garima Gospels date back to around 390–660 CE. This makes the Ethiopian tradition one of the earliest to preserve Christian scriptures. Unlike the Protestant Bible, which contains 66 books, or the Catholic Bible, which has 73, the Ethiopian Bible includes 81 books. This extensive collection reflects a scriptural tradition that predates many Western revisions.

By studying the Ethiopian Bible, scholars and believers alike gain a more complete view of early Christian thought. This tradition expands our understanding of biblical history, revealing stories and teachings that Western Christianity left behind. Whether one views these differences as omissions, refinements, or historical divergences, the Ethiopian Bible remains a vital and fascinating piece of Christian heritage.

There are a lot of links to them but then I looked for Matt 28:19 in their bible.

​

Text Overview​

Matthew 28:19 is part of the Great Commission, where Jesus instructs His disciples. The verse emphasizes the importance of making disciples and baptizing them.

Amharic Translation​

Here is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from the Ethiopian Bible (Amharic):

• “እንግዲህ ሂዱና አሕዛብን ሁሉ በአብ በወልድና በመንፈስ ቅዱስ ስም እያጠመቃችኋቸው ያዘዝኋችሁንም ሁሉ እንዲጠብቁ እያስተማራችኋቸው ደቀ መዛሙርት አድርጓቸው፤ እነሆም እኔ እስከ ዓለም ፍጻሜ ድረስ ሁልጊዜ ከእናንተ ጋር ነኝ።”

Key Elements​

• Command to Go: Jesus commands His followers to go and make disciples.
• Baptism: Disciples are to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
• Teaching: The verse also includes the instruction to teach the new disciples to observe all that Jesus commanded.

Now I looked also for the translation in the Ge'ez language as it is older then the Amharic...

I could not find much because it is a dead language

So I went to Gemini for original Ge'ez and English
In the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) Bible, Matthew 28:19 is part of the Great Commission. Ge'ez is the liturgical language of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churches.

Matthew 28:19 in Ge'ez​

---

Transliteration​

Huru enke wamaheru kwulo ahzaba wa'atméqu basma Ab wawald wamanfas qeddus.

English Translation​

"Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Word-for-Word Analysis​

• ሑሩ (Huru): Go (plural imperative).
• እንከ (Enke): Therefore / so / then.
• ወመሐሩ (Wamaheru): And teach / make disciples (from mahhara, meaning to teach).
• ኵሎ (Kwulo): All.
• አሕዛበ (Ahzaba): Nations / Gentiles.
• ወአጥምቁ (Wa'atméqu): And baptize them (plural imperative).
• በስመ (Basma): In the name of.
• አብ (Ab): Father.
• ወወልድ (Wawald): And Son.
• ወመንፈስ ቅዱስ (Wamanfas Qeddus): And Holy Spirit.

I asked for the age of the Ge'ez translation
The Ge'ez translation of Matthew 28:19 is one of the oldest in the world, with the earliest written evidence dating back to the late 4th to 6th centuries AD.
The translation of the Bible into Ge'ez occurred in two primary stages:

1. The Ancient "A-Text" (c. 350–600 AD)​

The initial translation of the Gospel of Matthew was completed by the 6th century at the latest, though many scholars believe the work began as early as the late 4th century.

• The Garima Gospels: These are the oldest surviving Ge'ez manuscripts, containing the complete text of Matthew. Radiocarbon dating on Garima 2 (the older of the two volumes) places it between 390–570 AD.
• Source: This early version, known as the A-text, was translated directly from Greek sources.
• Trinitarian Formula: Unlike some other ancient fragments or historical citations (such as those by Eusebius), the earliest Ge'ez manuscripts include the full Trinitarian formula ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit").

2. The Medieval "B-Text" (c. 13th–14th Century)​

The version often used in liturgical settings today is based on a medieval revision known as the B-text.

• Revision: This version was likely a 14th-century update of the older Ge'ez text, influenced by Arabic and Coptic translations.
• Standardization: This period of revision helped standardize the language into the "Classical Ge'ez" still used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church today.

Summary Table​

Text Type	Estimated Translation Date	Earliest Manuscript Evidence	Primary Source Language
A-Text	4th – 6th Century AD	Garima Gospels (c. 390–570 AD)	Greek
B-Text	13th – 14th Century AD	Dabra Māryām MS (14th Century)	Arabic/Ge'ez Revision

Gemini asked if I wanted to know how the Ge'ez text compares to the original Greek manuscripts of this verse....

Evaluating how the Ge'ez text compares to the original Greek manuscripts provides fascinating insight into the preservation of the Trinitarian formula in the Great Commission.
While some modern debates (like the ones on the apologetics forum you are viewing) question whether the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was an addition, the ancient Ge'ez manuscripts provide some of the strongest historical support for its early existence.

1. Textual Consistency​

• Greek Source: The oldest Ge'ez translation (the A-text) was translated directly from Greek.
• Full Formula: Unlike some other ancient versions where only "in my name" is cited, the earliest known Ge'ez manuscripts, such as the Garima Gospels (c. 390–570 AD), contain the complete Trinitarian formula exactly as it appears in major Greek codices like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

2. Comparison with Early Church Citations​

• The Eusebius Debate: A common point of comparison is the writing of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 AD). In his early works, he often quoted Matthew 28:19 as saying "make disciples... in my name," omitting the baptismal command and the Trinity.
• Ge'ez Priority: Because the Ge'ez translation began as early as the 4th century, it represents a textual tradition that was contemporary with or even predates some of the Greek manuscripts Eusebius would have used. The fact that the Ge'ez text includes the formula suggests it was firmly established in the Greek manuscripts reaching East Africa at that time.

3. Linguistic Preservation​

• Direct Translation: Because Ge'ez is a Semitic language, it often preserves certain nuances of the Greek word order or emphasis that can be lost in Latin or later European translations.
• Liturgical Stability: The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church has used this specific Ge'ez wording in its liturgy for over 1,500 years, providing a "frozen" look at how the verse was understood in the late Roman/Byzantine era.

Comparison Summary​

Feature	Original Greek (Major Codices)	Ancient Ge'ez (A-Text)
Formula	Full Trinitarian Formula	Full Trinitarian Formula
Command	"Baptizing them" included	"Baptizing them" (wa'atméqu) included
Age	4th Century (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus)	late 4th – 6th Century (Garima)

Export to Sheets

Would you like me to look into the Amharic translation of this verse to see how the modern Ethiopian language differs from the ancient Ge'ez?

It can't be a good Bible if it gets Matthew 28:19 wrong.

 

[Wick Stick]

This is true... but the question that is hanging out there is if some church added to the scriptures to shore up a Trinity claim
where does that leave the Trinity?

The church definitely did that with 1John 5:7-8. Not sure about here in Matthew.

Happy New Year if I get raptured before then LOL

Happy New Year!