What is the name of the son per Matthew 28:19?

TomL said:
John 1:1–2 (KJV 1900) — 1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Click to expand...
Correct.

God's word was what spoke everything into existence in Gen 1.

God's word was with Him as our words are with us.
 
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


This is twoness.

God and the man.

God in the man.

The man is the express image of his invisible inner God.

The man is God by default.
 
TomL said:
You claimed to be according to 1st century understanding
Click to expand...
Modern oneness is not 1st century "sola scriptura" oneness.

It is a cousin of trin doctrine.

They are both incarnationists of a sort.

They all use the RCC incarnation doctrine as a plumbline and compare themselves to it.

I use the Bible alone to compare myself to.

I had to start from scratch to do this.
 
Truther said:
Modern oneness is not 1st century "sola scriptura" oneness.

It is a cousin of trin doctrine.

They are both incarnationists of a sort.

They all use the RCC incarnation doctrine as a plumbline and compare themselves to it.

I use the Bible alone to compare myself to.

I had to start from scratch to do this.
Click to expand...
UM you affirmed twoness

and your view was the rejected

CHRISTOLOGY



ANCIENT CHRISTOLOGY

BACKGROUND

The Trinitarian controversy was clearly also a Christological controversy. The discussion involved not only the true deity and genuine humanity of Christ, but also the relationship of His two natures. The pendulum swung back and forth: the Docetists denied Jesus’ humanity; the Ebionites denied His deity; the Arians “reduced” His deity, while the Apollinarians “reduced” His humanity; the Nestorians denied the union of the two natures, while the Eutychians emphasized only one nature.


APOLLINARIANISM

Apollinaris (the Younger) was opposed to Arianism so that he taught an opposite extreme, which also proved heretical. Apollinaris taught “that the divine pre-existent Logos took the place of the ‘spirit’ in the man Jesus, so that Jesus had a human body and a human ‘soul’ but not a human ‘spirit.’ He held also that Christ had a body, but that the body was somehow so sublimated as to be scarcely a human body … Apollinaris reduced the human nature of Christ to something less than human.” Apollinaris believed the spirit of man was the seat of sin; therefore, to remove any possibility of sin from Christ, Apollinaris felt he had to deny the humanity of Jesus’ spirit.
The problem with Apollinaris’s view was that while retaining the deity of Christ, he denied the genuine humanity of Christ. In Apollinaris’s teaching Jesus was less than man. In seeking the unity of the person of Christ, Apollinaris denied Jesus’ humanity. Apollinaris was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.


NESTORIANISM

Nestorius disliked the Chalcedon statement describing Mary as “mother of God.” Although the statement also affirmed “as to his humanity,” Nestorius resisted this statement that led to the worship of Mary. Instead of acknowledging two natures in one Person concerning Christ, Nestorius “denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ … (and) virtually held to two natures and two persons.” Nestorius taught that while Christ suffered in His humanity, His deity was uninvolved (which was also the view of John of Damascus). The teaching was a denial of a real incarnation; instead of affirming Christ as God-man, He was viewed as two persons, God and man, with no union between them. Nestorius believed that because Mary was only the source of Jesus’ humanity, He must be two distinct persons.
Nestorius sought to defend Christ’s deity against Arianism and to resist Mariolatry. But he ultimately denied the unity of Christ. He was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.


EUTYCHIANISM

In reaction to Nestorius, Eutyches (A.D. 380–456) founded the monophysite heresy, declaring that Christ had only one nature. “The divine nature was so modified and accommodated to the human nature that Christ was not really divine … At the same time the human nature was so modified and changed by assimilation to the divine nature that He was no longer genuinely human.”
The result of the Eutychian teaching was that Christ was neither human nor divine; Eutychians created a new third nature. In their teaching, Christ had only one nature that was neither human nor divine.
This view was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, but the view continued in the Coptic church in Egypt.
A variation of this view was later propagated under a new designation, the monothelite view, suggesting Christ had only one will. This teaching was condemned at Constantinople in A.D. 680.



Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 421–423.



DOCETISM

Docetists denied the reality of Christ’s humanity, saying He only seemed to suffer and die. They erred by allowing Gnostic philosophy to dictate the meaning of the scriptural data.51 In the final analysis, the Christ described by the Docetists could save no one, since His death in a human body was the condition of His destruction of the power of Satan’s hold on humanity (Heb. 2:14).


EBIONISM

The Ebionite heresy grew out of a branch of Jewish Christianity that attempted to explain Jesus Christ in terms of its Jewish preunderstandings of God.53 For some of these early Christians, monotheism meant the Father alone was God. The Pharisees’ presence among the believers is attested in Acts 15:1–2, 5, and Pharisaic Ebionites began to teach that Jesus was just a man, begotten by Joseph and Mary. Some taught that Jesus was made to be the Son of God at His baptism by John. This teaching, called adoptionism, obviously did not agree with the New Testament statements of John and Paul about Christ’s origins.55


ARIANISM

Early in the fourth century, a man named Arius put forth his teachings with vigor, and they were believed by many people. The teachings are perhaps best understood as expressed in eight logically interlocking statements.
1. God’s fundamental characteristic is solitude. He exists alone.
2. Two Powers dwell in God, Word and Wisdom.
3. Creation was accomplished by an independent substance that God created.
4. The Son’s being is different from the Father’s.
5. The Son is not truly God.
6. The Son is a Perfect Creation of the Father.
7. Christ’s human soul was replaced by the Logos.
8. The Holy Spirit is a third created substance.
The core problem in Arius’ teaching was his insistence that the Son was created by the Father. The Nicene Council dealt with this, and Athanasius successfully defended the orthodox position. Although the doctrinal battle with the Arians raged for several decades, the Christology of Nicaea was established and remains a bulwark of orthodoxy to this day.


APOLLINARIANISM

Apollinaris of Laodicea lived through almost the entire fourth century and therefore saw firsthand the Arian controversy. He participated in the refutation of Arius and shared fellowship with the orthodox fathers of his day, including Athanasius. In his mature years, he gave himself to contemplation of the person of Christ under the philosophic premise that two perfect beings cannot become one. He believed the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, but held that as a man, Jesus would have spirit, soul, and body. To add the Son’s complete deity to this would result in a four-part being, which to Apollinaris would be a monstrosity. The solution to this problem for Apollinaris was that the Logos, representing the complete deity of the Son, replaced the human spirit in the man Jesus. By this means Apollinaris accomplished the union of the divine and human in Jesus.
But what about the human nature which now existed without a spirit? To understand the Christology of Apollinaris we must understand his view of human nature. He believed that the human being comprises a body (the fleshly corpse), a soul (the animating life-principle), and a spirit (the person’s mind and will). According to his teaching, Jesus’ mind was the divine mind, not a human mind. But is this the Jesus presented in the New Testament? How could such a Christ be truly tempted? The orthodox fathers took these questions and others to Apollinaris. When he would not change his position, the Council of Constantinople was convened in AD 381, and it refuted the teaching of Apollinaris.
Here we certainly have an important question about Jesus. Did He have a human mind? Several passages seem relevant to this issue. In Luke 23:46 we read that, at the point of death, “Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ ” This indicates that the spirit was an aspect of Jesus’ human existence and is mentioned here as that which returns to God at death. Hebrews 2:14, 17 reads:
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.… For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
Here the humanity of Jesus is said to be the same as our humanity. He is made like us in every way, apparently including having a human mind, so that the Atonement could be completed. The doctrinal implications of the heresy of Apollinaris challenge the Atonement itself.


MONARCHIANISM

Among the heresies concerning the nature of the Trinity that also misinterpreted Christ’s nature is Monarchianism, which is both its dynamic and modalistic forms was deficient in its view of the person of Christ.


NESTORIANISM

The teachings of Nestorius were popular in some areas of the world at the beginning of the fifth century. The controversy began as Nestorius found fault with the Church’s teaching concerning Mary. Since the Council of Nicaea had asserted Jesus’ full deity, it became necessary to explain Mary’s status in bearing the Christ into the world. The Church of Nestorius’ day was quite properly using the terminology theotokos, meaning “God-bearer,” to describe Mary. Nestorius reacted against this terminology, teaching that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning “Christ-bearer.” He maintained that only Jesus should be called theotokos. This terminology was important to Nestorius because he wished to present Jesus as the God-bearing man.
Nestorius taught that the Logos, as the complete Deity, indwelt the human Jesus similarly to the way the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. In this manner, Nestorius kept the humanity and the deity at some logical distance from each other. What held them together was a moral link provided by the perfection of Jesus, according to Nestorius.
The teachings of Nestorius were examined and rejected by the Council of Ephesus, which convened in AD 431. The council found that the teaching of a God-bearing man drove a wedge between the divine and human natures which the moral link could not sufficiently rejoin. In the final analysis, Nestorius reduced the value of the divine nature by His denial of the personal union of the natures.


EUTYCHIANISM

The teaching of Eutyches was popular in some areas in the first half of the fifth century. Eutychianism began with the assertion that Jesus’ body was not identical to ours, but was a special body brought into being for the messiahship of Jesus. This created the possibility, according to Eutyches, that the divine and the human were mingled together to create one nature instead of two. Therefore, in the Incarnation, Jesus was one Person with one nature, a deified humanity unlike any other humanity.
This teaching was examined by the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). The human nature of Christ quickly was recognized to be the major issue in the teaching. The council creatively used the terminology coined at Nicea, that Christ was homoousia with the Father, to refute the teaching of Eutyches. The council asserted that Jesus is homoousia hemin, which means He had in His humanity the same being or essence as we. This may seem to be a radical conclusion, but it is made necessary by several Scripture passages, not the least of which is Hebrews 2:14, 17. This clear defense of Christ’s humanity, alongside an equally clear affirmation of His deity, is an indication of the council members’ willingness to maintain the tensions and paradox of the biblical revelation. In fact, the Chalcedonian Christology has remained in Christianity as the bulwark of orthodoxy for some fifteen centuries.

David R. Nichols, “The Lord Jesus Christ,” in Systematic Theology: Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007), 308–312.

where do you fit in?
 
TomL said:
UM you affirmed twoness

and your view was the rejected

CHRISTOLOGY



ANCIENT CHRISTOLOGY

BACKGROUND

The Trinitarian controversy was clearly also a Christological controversy. The discussion involved not only the true deity and genuine humanity of Christ, but also the relationship of His two natures. The pendulum swung back and forth: the Docetists denied Jesus’ humanity; the Ebionites denied His deity; the Arians “reduced” His deity, while the Apollinarians “reduced” His humanity; the Nestorians denied the union of the two natures, while the Eutychians emphasized only one nature.


APOLLINARIANISM

Apollinaris (the Younger) was opposed to Arianism so that he taught an opposite extreme, which also proved heretical. Apollinaris taught “that the divine pre-existent Logos took the place of the ‘spirit’ in the man Jesus, so that Jesus had a human body and a human ‘soul’ but not a human ‘spirit.’ He held also that Christ had a body, but that the body was somehow so sublimated as to be scarcely a human body … Apollinaris reduced the human nature of Christ to something less than human.” Apollinaris believed the spirit of man was the seat of sin; therefore, to remove any possibility of sin from Christ, Apollinaris felt he had to deny the humanity of Jesus’ spirit.
The problem with Apollinaris’s view was that while retaining the deity of Christ, he denied the genuine humanity of Christ. In Apollinaris’s teaching Jesus was less than man. In seeking the unity of the person of Christ, Apollinaris denied Jesus’ humanity. Apollinaris was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.


NESTORIANISM

Nestorius disliked the Chalcedon statement describing Mary as “mother of God.” Although the statement also affirmed “as to his humanity,” Nestorius resisted this statement that led to the worship of Mary. Instead of acknowledging two natures in one Person concerning Christ, Nestorius “denied the real union between the divine and the human natures in Christ … (and) virtually held to two natures and two persons.” Nestorius taught that while Christ suffered in His humanity, His deity was uninvolved (which was also the view of John of Damascus). The teaching was a denial of a real incarnation; instead of affirming Christ as God-man, He was viewed as two persons, God and man, with no union between them. Nestorius believed that because Mary was only the source of Jesus’ humanity, He must be two distinct persons.
Nestorius sought to defend Christ’s deity against Arianism and to resist Mariolatry. But he ultimately denied the unity of Christ. He was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431.


EUTYCHIANISM

In reaction to Nestorius, Eutyches (A.D. 380–456) founded the monophysite heresy, declaring that Christ had only one nature. “The divine nature was so modified and accommodated to the human nature that Christ was not really divine … At the same time the human nature was so modified and changed by assimilation to the divine nature that He was no longer genuinely human.”
The result of the Eutychian teaching was that Christ was neither human nor divine; Eutychians created a new third nature. In their teaching, Christ had only one nature that was neither human nor divine.
This view was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, but the view continued in the Coptic church in Egypt.
A variation of this view was later propagated under a new designation, the monothelite view, suggesting Christ had only one will. This teaching was condemned at Constantinople in A.D. 680.



Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 421–423.



DOCETISM

Docetists denied the reality of Christ’s humanity, saying He only seemed to suffer and die. They erred by allowing Gnostic philosophy to dictate the meaning of the scriptural data.51 In the final analysis, the Christ described by the Docetists could save no one, since His death in a human body was the condition of His destruction of the power of Satan’s hold on humanity (Heb. 2:14).


EBIONISM

The Ebionite heresy grew out of a branch of Jewish Christianity that attempted to explain Jesus Christ in terms of its Jewish preunderstandings of God.53 For some of these early Christians, monotheism meant the Father alone was God. The Pharisees’ presence among the believers is attested in Acts 15:1–2, 5, and Pharisaic Ebionites began to teach that Jesus was just a man, begotten by Joseph and Mary. Some taught that Jesus was made to be the Son of God at His baptism by John. This teaching, called adoptionism, obviously did not agree with the New Testament statements of John and Paul about Christ’s origins.55


ARIANISM

Early in the fourth century, a man named Arius put forth his teachings with vigor, and they were believed by many people. The teachings are perhaps best understood as expressed in eight logically interlocking statements.
1. God’s fundamental characteristic is solitude. He exists alone.
2. Two Powers dwell in God, Word and Wisdom.
3. Creation was accomplished by an independent substance that God created.
4. The Son’s being is different from the Father’s.
5. The Son is not truly God.
6. The Son is a Perfect Creation of the Father.
7. Christ’s human soul was replaced by the Logos.
8. The Holy Spirit is a third created substance.
The core problem in Arius’ teaching was his insistence that the Son was created by the Father. The Nicene Council dealt with this, and Athanasius successfully defended the orthodox position. Although the doctrinal battle with the Arians raged for several decades, the Christology of Nicaea was established and remains a bulwark of orthodoxy to this day.


APOLLINARIANISM

Apollinaris of Laodicea lived through almost the entire fourth century and therefore saw firsthand the Arian controversy. He participated in the refutation of Arius and shared fellowship with the orthodox fathers of his day, including Athanasius. In his mature years, he gave himself to contemplation of the person of Christ under the philosophic premise that two perfect beings cannot become one. He believed the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, but held that as a man, Jesus would have spirit, soul, and body. To add the Son’s complete deity to this would result in a four-part being, which to Apollinaris would be a monstrosity. The solution to this problem for Apollinaris was that the Logos, representing the complete deity of the Son, replaced the human spirit in the man Jesus. By this means Apollinaris accomplished the union of the divine and human in Jesus.
But what about the human nature which now existed without a spirit? To understand the Christology of Apollinaris we must understand his view of human nature. He believed that the human being comprises a body (the fleshly corpse), a soul (the animating life-principle), and a spirit (the person’s mind and will). According to his teaching, Jesus’ mind was the divine mind, not a human mind. But is this the Jesus presented in the New Testament? How could such a Christ be truly tempted? The orthodox fathers took these questions and others to Apollinaris. When he would not change his position, the Council of Constantinople was convened in AD 381, and it refuted the teaching of Apollinaris.
Here we certainly have an important question about Jesus. Did He have a human mind? Several passages seem relevant to this issue. In Luke 23:46 we read that, at the point of death, “Jesus called out with a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ ” This indicates that the spirit was an aspect of Jesus’ human existence and is mentioned here as that which returns to God at death. Hebrews 2:14, 17 reads:
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil.… For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
Here the humanity of Jesus is said to be the same as our humanity. He is made like us in every way, apparently including having a human mind, so that the Atonement could be completed. The doctrinal implications of the heresy of Apollinaris challenge the Atonement itself.


MONARCHIANISM

Among the heresies concerning the nature of the Trinity that also misinterpreted Christ’s nature is Monarchianism, which is both its dynamic and modalistic forms was deficient in its view of the person of Christ.


NESTORIANISM

The teachings of Nestorius were popular in some areas of the world at the beginning of the fifth century. The controversy began as Nestorius found fault with the Church’s teaching concerning Mary. Since the Council of Nicaea had asserted Jesus’ full deity, it became necessary to explain Mary’s status in bearing the Christ into the world. The Church of Nestorius’ day was quite properly using the terminology theotokos, meaning “God-bearer,” to describe Mary. Nestorius reacted against this terminology, teaching that Mary should be called Christotokos, meaning “Christ-bearer.” He maintained that only Jesus should be called theotokos. This terminology was important to Nestorius because he wished to present Jesus as the God-bearing man.
Nestorius taught that the Logos, as the complete Deity, indwelt the human Jesus similarly to the way the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. In this manner, Nestorius kept the humanity and the deity at some logical distance from each other. What held them together was a moral link provided by the perfection of Jesus, according to Nestorius.
The teachings of Nestorius were examined and rejected by the Council of Ephesus, which convened in AD 431. The council found that the teaching of a God-bearing man drove a wedge between the divine and human natures which the moral link could not sufficiently rejoin. In the final analysis, Nestorius reduced the value of the divine nature by His denial of the personal union of the natures.


EUTYCHIANISM

The teaching of Eutyches was popular in some areas in the first half of the fifth century. Eutychianism began with the assertion that Jesus’ body was not identical to ours, but was a special body brought into being for the messiahship of Jesus. This created the possibility, according to Eutyches, that the divine and the human were mingled together to create one nature instead of two. Therefore, in the Incarnation, Jesus was one Person with one nature, a deified humanity unlike any other humanity.
This teaching was examined by the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). The human nature of Christ quickly was recognized to be the major issue in the teaching. The council creatively used the terminology coined at Nicea, that Christ was homoousia with the Father, to refute the teaching of Eutyches. The council asserted that Jesus is homoousia hemin, which means He had in His humanity the same being or essence as we. This may seem to be a radical conclusion, but it is made necessary by several Scripture passages, not the least of which is Hebrews 2:14, 17. This clear defense of Christ’s humanity, alongside an equally clear affirmation of His deity, is an indication of the council members’ willingness to maintain the tensions and paradox of the biblical revelation. In fact, the Chalcedonian Christology has remained in Christianity as the bulwark of orthodoxy for some fifteen centuries.

David R. Nichols, “The Lord Jesus Christ,” in Systematic Theology: Revised Edition, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield, MO: Logion Press, 2007), 308–312.

where do you fit in?
Click to expand...
I do not fit into any of those molds. What I’ve been telling you is not in all of those extra biblical ideas.
 
Truther said:
I have found on every forum that I have posted this thread that very rarely a person can tell me the name of the son as per Matthew 28:19. I consider this a phenomenon. Christendom does not know what the name of the son is per the specific verse. I wonder if anybody on this forum can accept the challenge and give me the name of the son per Matthew 28:19.
Click to expand...
Chuckle!!! Religious Word games!!!

"In the name of" = "With the AUTHORITY of: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" - i.e. GOD.

Play on!!!!
 

Similar threads

Johann
Confessing / "Having" / Knowing The Monogenic Son of God [49]
2
Replies
35
Views
146
Pancho Frijoles
Pancho Frijoles
Truther
What is the name of the son per Matt 28:19?
2
Replies
21
Views
645
Truther
Truther
Johann
An Articulation of the Doctrine of the Glorious Incarnation
Replies
0
Views
7
Johann
Johann
Johann
JESUS: YHWH GOD INCARNATE
Replies
0
Views
6
Johann
Johann
P
Proof of the Deity of Jesus on display in answering prayer.
Replies
4
Views
95
101G
101G
Back
Top Bottom