While arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, I think there are times that an argument from silence must be reckoned with. For example, in discussing whether Matthew 28:19 originally read “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “in my name,” some Trinitarian scholars argue that the latter is original. “In my name” does not appear in any extant manuscript, so what is there basis? One reason is Justin Martyr’s silence on the passage. In one of Justin’s work he was arguing for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the appropriate baptismal formula, and yet he never once appealed to Matthew 28:19 for support as we would expect for him to have done if Matthew 28:19 originally read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Since he did not, it stands to reason that Matthew 28:19 did not read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” in Justin’s day (or at least in the manuscripts he had access to), but rather “in my name.” While this is an argument from silence, it is a strong argument nonetheless.
My point is not to make any claims for the originality or non-originality of Mt 28:19, but rather to point out that we can’t just dismiss an argument based on silence by labeling it is fallacious. While I admit that an argument from silence does not carry as much weight as an argument from positive evidence, it does carry some weight and should be reckoned with. The principle is that if something is true, we expect to find certain evidence for it. If what we would expect to find in the way of evidence is not found, it should cause us to question whether our hypothesis/model is the appropriate one.
Another good example of an argument from silence that needs to be reckoned with concerns the identity of God. Trinitarians argue that God is eternally Father and eternally Son—two distinct persons in a triune Godhead. I observe from the Biblical data, however, that the Father-Son terminology is mysteriously absent from the OT (“father” appears a handful of times, but is used in a different sense than we find in the NT, and is never used to describe God’s relationship to another divine person; “son” is only used prophetically a few times in the OT, referring to the future Messiah, not a preexistent divine person), beginning to appear only in the NT. Why is this? If God is eternally Father and eternally Son, we would expect to read about the Son in the OT, or expect to see dialogues between Father and Son as we see in the NT. And yet we don’t.
While one could say in response to this argument that it can be dismissed because it fallaciously argues from silence, the fact remains that the silence itself is deafening, and needs to be explained. While it does not disprove a Trinitarian view of God or prove a Oneness view of God, this argument from silence is one that Trinitarians need to reckon with, as it definitely is counter-intuitive to what we would expect to find if Trinitarianism was true.
October 21, 2009 at 8:10 am
I suppose the problem with silence is that while it can damage someone’s argument, it cannot strengthen the other.
So when we have the problem with not mentioning Mat. 28v19, it weakens the trinitarian position, but does not strengthen the Oneness position either.
The same goes with the latter example in which you agree that it does not prove either way.
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 10:26 am
It seems to me that the complete and total lack of any manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 that say “in my name” is much stronger evidence for establishing the likely original text than one early writer’s failure to cite that particular verse when defending baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
As for the OT, God was apparently concerned with establishing the truth that there is only one God; explicitly differentiating the divine Persons was not necessary until the Incarnation, by which time monotheism was well-established. Why would you “expect to see dialogues between Father and Son [in the OT] as we see in the NT”? Can we “see” such dialogues today? In any case, there are clues in the OT that the one God is not monolithic, as Allah is in Islam–Elohim (plural), “Let us . . .” in Genesis 1, etc.
I am no expert on arguments for the Trinity, but in light of Scripture and church history, the burden of proof is clearly on those who deny it. While I have a lot of respect for Jason as an apologist, I was highly disappointed when I realized a while back that he rejects what I–along with the vast majority of Christians, throughout the ages and around the world–consider to be a fundamental tenet of the faith.
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 11:19 am
“I was highly disappointed when I realized a while back that he rejects what I–along with the vast majority of Christians, throughout the ages and around the world–consider to be a fundamental tenet of the faith.”….Why disappointed? Jason brings up a valuable point. The OT scriptures never shows a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead. From what i’ve read and understood, the Prophets related to YHWH as the One God and Father of Israel “for there is one God; and there is none other but he”
. Futhermore, to imply that God is not numerically one (undivided), seems to suggest that God is only “One” in a unified sense, The same way that a man and a woman can be “One Flesh”, Yet two distinct and separate people.
On to the NT text. It seems that the Father-Son relationship began at the incarnation, where God became a Father to the Man and Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is proven by the way that Jesus of Nazareth related to “his Father and his God” (see John 20:17), since he was a genuine human being, like us. If not the case, then are we to conclude that “God has a God” or “God has a Father”? During Jesus’ walk in the earth was God tempted with evil? Did God hunger & thirst? Did God pray to God? If your answer to these questions is YES, then how can Trinitarian doctrine say that ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Son’ are equal in authority, will, and purpose?
I don’t want to take up too much bandwith, but its just something to consider.
Peace.
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Justin’s non-citation of Mt. 28:19 is of little logical significance if taken alone. When considered against the backdrop of the biblical record of baptism, the history of early Christian baptism and the development of trinitarian terminology over centuries, it becomes more significant.
Moreover, the fact Eusebius quotes and/or refers to Mt. 28:19 several times without including the trinitarian formula indicates, at the very least, some non-extant manuscript copies contained a very different wording than we have today.
Taken together, it is curious, to say the least, Justin didn’t specifically cite that verse. It is possible somebody played with Justin’s writings, too, but that’s another issue.
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Jason,
You have brought up the question about Matthew 28:19(I think I remember you making a reference to this in the past). Do you have doubts as to whether it is in the original manuscripts?
Lynne
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Scott,
True, but part of demonstrating the superiority of one view over the other is by showing the inadequacies of the other view(s). When the data is not what we would expect to find given the truth of the theory, it is a mark against it. Of course, one still needs to amass positive evidence for one’s own case.
For the record, I am not of the opinion that the traditional reading of Mt 28:19 is not original, although there are some good reasons to doubt its authenticity. What I find interesting is that it is not Oneness people who are advancing these arguments, but (some) Trinitarians! They are using the argument from silence against the traditional wording of Mt 28:19.
As for my example “Father” and “Son” example, while I don’t think it proves anything in and of itself, it is part of a cumulative case against the Trinitarian interpretation of Scripture because it is counter-intuitive to what we would expect if God is eternally three persons.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Aletheist,
It goes beyond just Justin’s lack of reference to it (as well as Irenaeus and Hermas, whom I did not mention in the post). It also includes Eusebius’ quotations of Mt 28:19 as “in my name” rather than F,S,HS. So either Eusebius had copies of Mt that read “in my name,” or he was purposely changing the textual form for some reason.
Also consider the fact that the church fathers testify to variant readings in their day for which we there is no extant manuscript support for today, or only found in one or two manuscripts just recently discovered. In some cases, they would report that some variant was in the majority of their manuscripts, and yet today it is either unknown in the extant manuscripts, or preserved in only one or two recently discovered manuscripts. For example, Jerome reported that the longer ending of Mark was found in quite a few exemplars, and a lot of Greek manuscripts. And yet today that reading only exists in one document: Washingtonius (discovered in 1906). Another example: The reading “apart from God” in Heb 2:9 is found in the church fathers of both the East and West, but exists today in only two manuscripts. Prior to the discovery of those two manuscripts we could have argued as you are, that those readings can’t be possible because no manuscript possesses them. So we have to be careful with claiming that some reading cannot be original merely because we don’t possess a Greek manuscript testifying to it. We continue to find manuscripts virtually every month, so it could turn up next month for all we know. The fact of the matter is that those living 1600-1800 years ago seem to have been quoting from texts that read differently than the manuscripts we have today, and thus it is possible that they did have texts that read differently, but those texts were not preserved (or have yet to be found).
I’m not saying Trinitarians cannot offer an explanation as to why “Father” and “Son” don’t appear until the NT. They do. I don’t find it particularly persuasive, but they do. I’m saying that it is not what we would expect given the truth of Trinitarianism, but it is what we would expect given Oneness theology.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a whole separate topic that would be hard to get into here, so I won’t try. I will only say that given Scripture and early church history, I think the burden of proof is on Trinitarians to justify their extra-biblical developments concerning the doctrine of God. Even Trinitarians will agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture. It is there only implicitly, they claim. They see the Trinity as the only way to make sense of all the Biblical data. I disagree. I think the Oneness model can also make sense of all the data, and does so in a way superior to the Trinitarian model. Given that the Trinitarian model is not explicitly found in the NT, is vary different from the understanding of God we find in the OT, and developed over a period of several hundred years, I see no reason to think that the burden of proof is on Oneness people. Our view is consistent with the Jewish view, consistent with the NT, and consistent with the earliest church fathers. It looks to me as if Trinitarianism is a departure from all three. But I’ve probably said too much already.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Lynn,
While I think there is a valid basis on which to doubt the extant wording of Mt 28:19, I think the reasons for thinking it is original are stronger than the reasons for doubting it. We have a couple of articles on IBS relating to this that you can read to see some of the evidence supporting the view: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm and http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/wordonmatt2819.htm. As I told Scott, I don’t buy it, but there is a case to be made.
If this blows up into a bigger topic I may say more on it, but for now let me just give you four reasons why I don’t think “in my name” is the original wording of Mt 28:19:
1. Why would the church/scribes change Matthew 28:19, but not Luke 24:46-47 and all the references in Acts?
2. No extant Greek manuscript contains the shorter reading. While not conclusive proof, it is suggestive.
3. All early translations such as the Syriac contain the traditional wording.
4. If the traditional reading is not original it would seem that the conspirators would have been more careful in their grammar. While I think it is grammatically acceptable to use “name” singular followed by three names (plural), the more obvious choice would be to use the plural form. The fact that the grammar is difficult, and that no Fathers felt the need to correct or amend it later (which they often did to what they thought were copying errors) argues for its authenticity.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Scalia,
I agree. The strength of the argument is found in a multiplicity of factors, not just one. Indeed, when my professor brought this issue to the attention of Daniel Wallace, Wallace had to take a hard look at it and admitted that there was a decent case. That was just his cursory analysis. I don’t know if he did any further work in this area or came to any definitive conclusions, but that says something.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Again, I am not fully up to speed on the arguments either way here, and I do not want to make a big issue of it. This is Jason’s blog, and he has the right to address whatever he wants; but I am much more interested in discussing philosophy and apologetics than getting into a theological debate. Still, I will offer a few brief responses.
>The OT scriptures never shows a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead.On to the NT text. It seems that the Father-Son relationship began at the incarnation, where God became a Father to the Man and Messiah, Jesus Christ.Prior to the discovery of those two manuscripts we could have argued as you are, that those readings can’t be possible because no manuscript possesses them.I will only say that given Scripture and early church history, I think the burden of proof is on Trinitarians to justify their extra-biblical developments concerning the doctrine of God.<
Needless to say, I disagree. I think that the burden of proof is on Oneness proponents to justify their atypical and ahistorical understanding of the Christian doctrine of God. Did the church (as a whole) struggle for a while to reach consensus regarding a proper understanding of the relationships among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yes. Is this, in itself, a good reason to doubt that they got it right? Of course not.
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Okay, that was weird. Let me try again.
‘The OT scriptures never shows a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead.’
Never? “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” (Psalm 2:7, cited as applying to Jesus in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, and Hebrews 5:5)
‘On to the NT text. It seems that the Father-Son relationship began at the incarnation, where God became a Father to the Man and Messiah, Jesus Christ.’
John would seem to disagree, even though you cited his Gospel. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (1:1)
‘Prior to the discovery of those two manuscripts we could have argued as you are, that those readings can’t be possible because no manuscript possesses them.’
I did NOT argue that the Oneness reading of Matthew 28:19 is impossible; what I said is that the lack of manuscripts is “much stronger evidence for establishing the likely original text.” You even seem to agree with me about this.
Of course, that verse is not the only basis in the NT for the doctrine of the Trinity. Another obvious example is the baptism of Jesus Himself, when the Holy Spirit descended like a dove and the Father spoke His approval of the Son. (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22)
‘I will only say that given Scripture and early church history, I think the burden of proof is on Trinitarians to justify their extra-biblical developments concerning the doctrine of God.’
Needless to say, I disagree. I think that the burden of proof is on Oneness proponents to justify their atypical and ahistorical understanding of the Christian doctrine of God. Did the church (as a whole) struggle for a while to reach consensus regarding a proper understanding of the relationships among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Yes. Is this, in itself, a good reason to doubt that they got it right? Of course not.
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Jason,
Isn’t your argument really that the “argument from silence” is not necessarily fallacious, rather than that fallacious arguments shouldn’t be dismissed?
Arthur
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I think the record is pretty darn clear that baptism was trinitarian from the earliest times. The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), written in the 1st century and considered as Scripture until the 4th century, is one of the earliest Christian witnesses and it’s clear on this. Teachings to the contrary are of the flesh and the world, IMHO. But I agree with Jason’s use of the argument from silence as some (weak) evidence for his view.
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Aletheist,
I agree that the Father-Son relationship does not begin until the NT when God became a man. Shouldn’t that tell us something? Is it more likely that the Son is a distinct and eternal person in the Godhead that God simply chose not to disclose to us for thousands of years until the incarnation, or is it more likely that the Son is the same divine person we’ve been reading about in the OT, but in human existence? I think the latter is much more likely, and makes much more sense of the data. Maybe the whole “Son” thing has something to do with the Spirit conceiving a child through Mary, and nothing to do with a heretofore unknown, eternally distinct person in the Godhead. The incarnation can explain why we see the sudden emergence of Father-Son language in the NT, and why we see all the distinctions we see in the NT. God fathered a child, making Jesus God’s Son, and God Jesus’ father. God became a man, taking up a human nature, causing Him to exist and function in a new way, and yet never ceasing to exist/function as He always had. The incarnation brought about a modal/existential/functional distinction for the divine person. He now exists and functions as man, while continuing to exist and function as God. The Father-Son distinction is real, but it is caused by the incarnation of a single person. It is not eternal, and it is not between two divine persons. That fits the data, and doesn’t require us to redefine monotheism as it was revealed to, and understood by the Jews.
You said the Oneness view is an ahistorical and atypical understanding of God. From whose perspective? From the 21st century, or from the 1st and 2nd? Trinitarian scholars admit that the Trinity is not spelled out in the NT. My Trinitarian professor candidly admitted to me that it’s very unlikely that Paul and the other NT authors conceived of God as a Trinity. He thinks they believed the Father and Jesus were God, but that they did not have a theological system like the Trinity all worked out to know how to affirm this consistently (he’s not alone).
And when you look at the writings of the early 2nd century you won’t find anything like the Trinity either. So from the perspective of the 1st and 2nd centuries, prior to the rise of Trinitarian theology, it would be the doctrine of the Trinity that would be atypical and ahistorical. After all, there was 1500 years of theology that said God is one person. And beyond that, the majority of the early Christians seem to have held to a Oneness view (or at least something much closer to Oneness theology than Trinitarian theology). Indeed, even in Tertullian’s day he complained that the majority of Christians held to a Oneness theology. So I would argue that Oneness was the original understanding of the Christian God, and that understanding was slowly replaced with a Trinitarian view. Since Trinitarianism is a departure of what the earliest Christians believed, Trinitarians have the burden of proof.
I’m not claiming that a doctrine cannot be right merely because it developed over time. Many doctrinal formulations that we hold today developed over time. My point is that you can’t claim that the Trinity is what Christians have always believed. They didn’t. The Trinity is a theological construct that was developed later to help make sense of what the Bible says about God and Christ. It is a mistake to think that the Trinity is the teaching of Scripture itself. Neither is Oneness theology for that matter. Both are theological constructs trying to make sense of three strands of biblical teaching:
1. There is only one God
2. The Father is referred to as (that one) God, the Son is referred to as (that one) God, and the Holy Spirit is referred to as (that one) God
3. Distinctions are made between Father, Son, and Spirit
Both Trinitarian and Oneness theologies can account for this data, although I think the Oneness model does so better.
Jason
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Aletheist,
I responded before seeing your second, and apparently corrected post.
Yes, Ps 2:7 is applied to Jesus. But notice a couple of things. First, in its original context it has to do with the king, not the Messiah. Secondly, the NT authors apply this passage as referring to the Messiah’s birth and/or resurrection. So in its Messianic interpretation, one must understand it as referring to the future (NT times), not the then-present, and thus it is no evidence at all for there being a Father and Son in the OT, or any pre-incarnation communication between Father and Son.
Jn 1:1. All this affirms is that Jesus is the eternal God. It doesn’t affirm that He is a distinct person from the Father, or that He is eternally a Son.
You referred to the “Oneness reading of Mt 28:19.” As I said before, it’s not Oneness people who are saying this. It’s Trinitarian scholars who are saying this. I only know of a few Oneness people who are even aware of the issue! And those who are aware of it, and argue that Mt 28:19 originally read “in my name” are getting their arguments from the Trinitarian scholars. But yes, I do agree with you that the fact we don’t have a single extant Greek manuscript reflecting this reading does make the view suspect. My only point was that it doesn’t rule it out. Besides, if it was originally “in my name,” the change would have had to have been very early on (mid 4th century), and we simply don’t have many extant copies of manuscripts from this period (of any NT book).
As for Jesus’ baptism, see my article here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/voicedove.htm. I’ve heard a lot of Trinitarians use this, but the argument is pitiful in my estimation. Trinitarians often think that if they can find some place where we see the terms “Father, Son, and Spirit” all together in one place (which we don’t have in the baptism episode, btw), or that if we can find places where Jesus is shown to be distinct from the Father or Spirit, that this proves the Trinity. It doesn’t! We all admit that the Bible uses those three terms, and that the Bible makes a distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit. The debate is over the question of why. Why use the different names? Why are there distinctions? Is it because there are three distinct persons? That is a valid hypothesis, but it’s not the only explanation. To prove the Trinity from Scripture one would have to show that the distinctions are personal in nature, and hence the three names are designations for three distinct persons. I don’t think that can be done, and I think there is good reason to think that this is not the best explanation.
Jason
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Arthur,
You’ve got it absolutely right. My point is that the argument from silence is not always fallacious. If, given theory X, we would expect to find Y, and yet we don’t find Y, pointing out the absence/silence of Y is a valid argument. This is very different than saying something like “Because Jason didn’t say he believes in inerrancy, he doesn’t believe in it.” That is a fallacious argument from silence.
Jason
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Arthur,
Claiming that baptism was Trinitarian from the earliest times is very problematic. First, you have skipped right over the NT. Every example we have of people being baptized, we see them being baptized in Jesus’ name rather than the triune formula in Mt 28:19. And when Paul talks about baptism in 1 Corinthians and Romans, what he writes only makes sense if he presupposed that baptism was done in Jesus’ name (the same is true of James’ reference of “that worthy name invoked over you”).
As for the Didache, it was highly esteemed in the church, but only a few considered it canonical. Secondly, not everyone agrees it is from the first century. It is probably from the early 2nd century, and some scholars have dated it much later. Thirdly, in Didache 9:5 it speaks of those who are “baptized into the name of the Lord,” and thus appears to support both a Jesus’ name formula as well as the triune formula. Fourthly, anybody who has read this document should see how much it departs from Biblical teaching, and how many new teachings it institutes. The chapter on baptism (7) not only mentions baptizing in the triune formula, but also specifies that it should be done in cold running water, and that if cold running water is not available, warm is acceptable. And if cold/warm running water is not available, pouring is acceptable. But when they pour, they must pour three times: once for the Father, once for Son, once for Spirit. Not only that, but both the baptizer and the baptizee are told to be fasting prior to baptism. This document contains all sorts of non-biblical traditions and requirements that I have no reason to think that it reflects what the apostles did/taught.
Like I told Altheist, it is not my view that Mt 28:19 was changed to its current form. My only point is that one of the arguments for this view—the argument from silence that Justin et al did not cite Mt 28:19 as evidence for a triune formula—is not fallacious.
Jason
LikeLike
October 23, 2009 at 6:39 am
‘I agree that the Father-Son relationship does not begin until the NT when God became a man.’
I obviously disagree. The Father-Son relationship has existed within the one God from all eternity.
‘I think the latter is much more likely, and makes much more sense of the data.’
I think that you are wrong on both counts.
‘The Father-Son distinction is real, but it is caused by the incarnation of a single person.’
No, the incarnation of God was only possible because the Father-Son distinction already existed. It makes no sense for the Father to send the Son, the Son to pray to the Father, the Father and Son to send the Spirit, etc., if the three names all refer to the same person.
‘After all, there was 1500 years of theology that said God is one person.’
Really? The Israelites clearly believed that there is only one God–so do Trinitarians, of course–but did they view Him as one “person” in the same sense that Trinitarians have in mind?
‘Yes, Ps 2:7 is applied to Jesus. But notice a couple of things.’
I was merely responding to truthofgod’s assertion that the OT NEVER shows a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead. Never is a strong word; it only takes one counterexample to refute it.
‘Jn 1:1. All this affirms is that Jesus is the eternal God. It doesn’t affirm that He is a distinct person from the Father, or that He is eternally a Son.’
Sure it does. The Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God. If the Word and God are the same person, it makes no sense to say that the Word was with God. That would be equivalent to saying that the Word was with the Word, or that God was with God.
Verse 2 repeats, for emphasis, “He was with God in the beginning.” The Word was with God (i.e., distinct from God) “in the beginning”; this did not come about at the Incarnation, which is addressed in verse 14: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only [or Only Begotten], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The Word existed, distinct from the Father, BEFORE becoming flesh.
Then comes verse 18: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [or God the Only Begotten, or the only begotten Son], who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” If the Father and the Son are the same person, how can the Son be “at the Father’s side”?
‘As for Jesus’ baptism, see my article here . . . I’ve heard a lot of Trinitarians use this, but the argument is pitiful in my estimation.’
That seems rather uncharitable. Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends, and the Father speaks. Taking them to be three distinct persons is the most natural way to understand this scene. Otherwise, you have God being baptized, God descending, and God speaking from heaven, all at the same time. Why not just say that, instead of using different names, as we find in all four Gospels?
‘To prove the Trinity from Scripture one would have to show that the distinctions are personal in nature, and hence the three names are designations for three distinct persons.’
I have taken an admittedly weak stab at this, using just a couple of passages that sprang immediately to mind. I hope that we can agree that neither side will ultimately succeed by proof-texting; we have to take in the whole counsel of Scripture and follow the Spirit’s guidance as we attempt to grasp the meaning that each Biblical author intended when he wrote.
Blessings.
LikeLike
October 23, 2009 at 7:05 am
‘I was merely responding to truthofgod’s assertion that the OT NEVER shows a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead. Never is a strong word; it only takes one counterexample to refute it.’
RE: I never said that there was no mentioning of a Father-Son relationship in the OT. I was simply saying that there is no mentioning of a Father-Son relationship between two divine persons. In other words, the relationship between the Father and the Son is actually between the Jesus of Nazareth (a Man) and his Father (God).
Furthermore, the text says- Ps 2: “7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
How was the Son Eternally Begotten, if (according to scripture) the LORD declared to have begotten to son at a particular TIME which is called “this day”. Doesn’t make sense.
‘That seems rather uncharitable. Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends, and the Father speaks. Taking them to be three distinct persons is the most natural way to understand this scene.’
RE: So basically ‘God the Son’ is being baptized by ‘God the Father’. Hince God being baptized by God? Yet each member of the trinity are co-equal (according to trinitarian doctrine)? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction.
Then comes verse 18: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [or God the Only Begotten, or the only begotten Son], who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” If the Father and the Son are the same person, how can the Son be “at the Father’s side”?
RE: Here is the core of the problem. “at the Father’s side”. In other words ‘God the Son’ is sitting next to ‘God the Father’. Don’t you see that you are intimating that these are two Gods, Yet the scriptures say that there is only ONE God? We must rightly divide the Word of Truth.
LikeLike
October 23, 2009 at 8:13 am
***Jason says: ‘I agree that the Father-Son relationship does not begin until the NT when God became a man.’
***Aletheist says: I obviously disagree. The Father-Son relationship has existed within the one God from all eternity.
***Michael says: I obviously disagree. The Father –Son relationship has *not* existed within one God from all eternity
***Jason says: ‘I think the latter is much more likely, and makes much more sense of the data.’
***Aletheist says: I think that you are wrong on both counts.
***Michael says: I think Jason is right on both counts
***Jason says: ‘The Father-Son distinction is real, but it is caused by the incarnation of a single person.’
***Aletheist says: No, the incarnation of God was only possible because the Father-Son distinction already existed. It makes no sense for the Father to send the Son, the Son to pray to the Father, the Father and Son to send the Spirit, etc., if the three names all refer to the same person.
***Michael says: No, the incarnation of God was only possible because God miraculously remained transcending Spirit while simultaneously becoming a genuine man. It makes sense for the Father to send the Son, the Son to pray to the Father, the Father and Son to send the Spirit (though we know how that *sending* toggled in John), etc, when the uni-person God is divine Spirit and genuine man simultaneously.
***Jason says: ‘Yes, Ps 2:7 is applied to Jesus. But notice a couple of things.’
***Aletheist says: I was merely responding to truthofgod’s assertion that the OT NEVER shows a Father-Son relationship in the Godhead. Never is a strong word; it only takes one counterexample to refute it.
***Michael says: but your missing the point Aletheist. The meaning of the passage (not merely the terminology) is emphasizing the future, not the present. So once again, in the OT, there is no Father-Son relationship discussed as you are proposing.
***Jason says: ‘Jn 1:1. All this affirms is that Jesus is the eternal God. It doesn’t affirm that He is a distinct person from the Father, or that He is eternally a Son.’
***Aletheist says: Sure it does.
***Michael says: Sure it doesn’t
***Aletheist says: The Word was WITH God…..
***Michael says: Aletheist – question for you – what is the “Word”…?
***Jason says: ‘As for Jesus’ baptism, see my article here . . . I’ve heard a lot of Trinitarians use this, but the argument is pitiful in my estimation.’
***Aletheist says: That seems rather uncharitable. Jesus is baptized, the Spirit descends, and the Father speaks. Taking them to be three distinct persons is the most natural way to understand this scene.
***Michael says: Aletheist, while your interpretation may seem most “natural”, the article suggests that it is most incorrect when considering the meaning behind the terminology and concepts.
***Aletheist says: Otherwise, you have God being baptized, God descending, and God speaking from heaven, all at the same time.
***Michael says: I won’t be redundant and repeat what the article says, for it explains what is happening, but from your logic, and considering the Trinitarian view, couldn’t that argument be used against you? The Trinitarian understanding is that God is one, three distinct persons, co equal, therefore all being God – so technically, from your view, couldnt the question be asked of you: was God being baptized, God descending, and God speaking from heaven, all at the same time?
***Aletheist says: Why not just say that, instead of using different names, as we find in all four Gospels?
***Michael says: Perhaps it is because the confusion is not with the terminology, but with the meaning. There was a voice, there was a dove, there was Jesus bodily in the water…but what is the meaning of it as it relates to God being one? That is the debate…
***Aletheist says: I have taken an admittedly weak stab at this, using just a couple of passages that sprang immediately to mind. I hope that we can agree that neither side will ultimately succeed by proof-texting; we have to take in the whole counsel of Scripture and follow the Spirit’s guidance as we attempt to grasp the meaning that each Biblical author intended when he wrote.
***Michael says: Aletheist – what your suggesting is what many scholars have been doing for years and years – yet the debate and division remains – and if history repeats itself (pun intended), the debate will remain. Nevertheless, I agree with you that grasping the meaning that each biblical author intended when he wrote it is indeed important.
LikeLike
October 23, 2009 at 9:10 pm
‘RE: So basically ‘God the Son’ is being baptized by ‘God the Father’. Hince God being baptized by God? Yet each member of the trinity are co-equal (according to trinitarian doctrine)? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction.’
Actually, God the Son was baptized by John the Baptist. Nevertheless, although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, the Son submits to the Father, and the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son. There is no contradiction here whatsoever; after all, a husband and wife are co-equal, and yet the wife is called to submit to her husband.
‘Don’t you see that you are intimating that these are two Gods, Yet the scriptures say that there is only ONE God?’
I am not “intimating” anything of the sort. One God, three Persons. Trinitarians vigorously affirm that there is only one God.
‘It makes sense for the Father to send the Son, the Son to pray to the Father, the Father and Son to send the Spirit . . . when the uni-person God is divine Spirit and genuine man simultaneously.’
Sorry, but that still does not make sense to me. There is clearly a subject-object distinction between the Father and the Son, the Father and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit.
‘Aletheist – question for you – what is the “Word”…?’
The answer is in the text itself: “the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . The Word became flesh . . .” The Word is the Son, who existed “in the beginning” and became a man at a particular point in time. The Word is not the Father or the Spirit, because neither the Father nor the Spirit ever “became flesh”.
‘Aletheist, while your interpretation may seem most “natural”, the article suggests that it is most incorrect when considering the meaning behind the terminology and concepts.’
I read the article, and it makes some valid points, but it does not come close to refuting the doctrine of the Trinity; not to me, anyway.
‘was God being baptized, God descending, and God speaking from heaven, all at the same time?’
In the sense that “God” can be substituted for “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit”, yes. Likewise, Mary is called by some “the mother of God,” but no one would say that Mary was “the mother of the Father” or “the Mother of the Holy Spirit”. Juergen Moltmann wrote a book called _The Crucified God_; but he was not suggesting that the Father or the Holy Spirit was crucified. However, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same Person, then these formulations become much more problematic.
‘There was a voice, there was a dove, there was Jesus bodily in the water…but what is the meaning of it as it relates to God being one?’
The voice called Jesus “my Son”, and the dove is explicitly identified as the Holy Spirit. Why would God call Himself “my Son”? Why would the Spirit descend upon Jesus if they were both the same person?
‘Nevertheless, I agree with you that grasping the meaning that each biblical author intended when he wrote it is indeed important.’
I hope that all of us can agree on this!
Blessings.
LikeLike
October 24, 2009 at 5:51 am
**’Actually, God the Son was baptized by John the Baptist. Nevertheless, although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, the Son submits to the Father, and the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son. There is no contradiction here whatsoever; after all, a husband and wife are co-equal, and yet the wife is called to submit to her husband.’
RE: Sorry, for misspeaking, yes Jesus was baptized by John. How ever, you still have God being baptized, God speaking from heaven, and God decending from heaven as a dove. Yet, God the Father is not God the Son, and God the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Ok, i’m still trying to see how you don’t have 3 separate beings. Secondly, the scriptures say that 1 Cor. 11:3 “The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, the head of Christ is God”, this speaks of authority. How is it that Christ be co equal with the Father if the Son is submitting to the Father? Obviously, one has authority over the other. Thirdly, if you relate the Father/Son relationship to that of a husband/wife, then I maintain that you have TWO separate and distinct beings. And not ONE as the scriptures claim.
‘In the sense that “God” can be substituted for “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit”, yes. Likewise, Mary is called by some “the mother of God,” but no one would say that Mary was “the mother of the Father” or “the Mother of the Holy Spirit”. Juergen Moltmann wrote a book called _The Crucified God_; but he was not suggesting that the Father or the Holy Spirit was crucified. However, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same Person, then these formulations become much more problematic.’
Catholicism says that ‘Mary is the mother of God’. The scriptures NEVER says such a thing. Mary is the mother of…”the CHILD, his name was called JESUS, which was named of the angel before he was CONCEIVED in the womb.”Luke 2:21. Now according to scripture God is which out father and without MOTHER, nor beginning of days, for he is eternal. However, men do have fathers and mothers. And this is the only way the Son had a mother because he was a genuine MAN. Not to take anything away from His deity, but you have to understand when the scriptures emphasize his humanity. Thirdly, You are right The Father was not crucified on the cross because since God is Spirit, you can’t crucify or kill Spirit, however men can be crucified and killed. Meaning that, Jesus of Nazareth, (a man) was killed, not God the Son. I will show you, bibically exactly what i’m talking about…..
LikeLike
October 24, 2009 at 6:00 am
…Continued…This is Peter’s discourse regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Notice the language and how he distinguishes Jesus (a man) from God. Again, this is the context of the entire portion of this discource. PETER IS NOT SPEAKING OF ‘GOD THE SON’.
Acts 2:22-32
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, A MAN approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have CRUCIFIED and SLAIN:
24Whom God hath RAISED UP, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
*Jason, i will try to cut my responses shorter in the future*
LikeLike
October 24, 2009 at 6:50 am
‘Ok, i’m still trying to see how you don’t have 3 separate beings.’
One being, three persons.
‘How is it that Christ be co equal with the Father if the Son is submitting to the Father? Obviously, one has authority over the other.’
Are you disagreeing that the Son is submitting to the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
‘Meaning that, Jesus of Nazareth, (a man) was killed, not God the Son.’
‘Notice the language and how he distinguishes Jesus (a man) from God.’
Wait, are you denying the deity of Jesus?
LikeLike
October 24, 2009 at 8:10 am
**Are you disagreeing that the Son is submitting to the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:28 says that “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
RE: No i’m not disagreeing that the Son is submitting to the Father. My disagreement is with your assersion that one divine person ‘God the Son’ is submitting to the other divine person ‘God the Father’. Rather the sciptures support the fact that, because Jesus was a genuine human being, he submitted to his Father and God, the same way that we do. Again, i refer you to John 20:17!!
**Wait, are you denying the deity of Jesus?
RE: NOT AT ALL WHAT SO EVER! I believe that Jesus is no other than God (Jehovah of the Old testament Prophets) manifested in the flesh. He is the Emmanuel “Translated: God with us”. The problem with trinitarian logic is that it doesn’t properly account for the passages which speak of the Son, Jesus of Nazareth’s genuine humanity. Some passages of scripture, at times, speak of Jesus separate from God, because of his genuine humanity. Now this does not anything away from his deity, but it does nothing else but speak of him being a man.
Again, i really hope you can see this.
LikeLike
October 25, 2009 at 9:29 pm
What I find just as amazing is the obvious silence of Paul. I mean come on if he went through all the trouble to explain everything about circumcision then why wouldn’t he redefine the Godhead? There is a saying in the computer programming world for the python programming language. It is better to be explicit than implicit. Let me try to practice that, it is more important when it comes to the Word of God. If it is stated Explicitly in scripture then let’s hang our hat on that. If it is implied? Well there is a certain level of complication to the implication. Number 1 complication being that of interpretation.
Trinitarians differ greatly on the definition. Some say 3 seperate persons in one God. Some saying 3 distinct persons in one God. None of those definitions are explicitly stated in the sacred writ.
One Lord, is written. Everlasting father is written, not everlasting son. When you’ve seen me you’ve seen the father, is written. I mean that is explicit.
What we see at the baptism of Christ is not the defining of a new order in the Godhead but the whole purpose was for him to fulfill all righteousness. God is well pleased when we are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the only name of the only wise God and our savior Jesus Christ. The Spirit will come down on those who are baptized because it is promised Acts 2:38 and 39.
Matthew 28:19 is not a triune formula but it is saying what the rest of Scripture plainly declares, the name which is above every name, that Jesus who has all power in Heaven and in earth.
Jesus Christ the grand sum of the wisdom and plan of God, that is the Word. God’s plan became flesh not a second divine person.
So why didn’t Paul redefine God? When he was knocked for a loop he ran straight to the same mount Sinai that Moses went to. Paul’s spiritual world was shaken but he didn’t come away with a new definition he came away knowing that when he asked the question, being a Jew he only knew ONE LORD. He asked the question Who are you Lord and the Lord said I am JESUS! An explicit question with an explicit answer. Simple.
LikeLike
October 26, 2009 at 5:24 am
Another point of silence from Modern day trinitarians is the lack of a good example. The only example I’ve read that fit the doctrine of the trinity in real life was schizophrenia. What would be a good real world example of the trinity?
truthofgod I think when we talk about the cross and who died there it is important to know that not just flesh was on the cross. God was not only in Christ but he became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes great is the mystery of how God became flesh. I am thankful he didn’t send a second person, or a demi god but he came himself and purchased me with His own blood.
LikeLike
October 26, 2009 at 5:38 am
***truthofgod I think when we talk about the cross and who died there it is important to know that not just flesh was on the cross. God was not only in Christ but he became flesh and dwelt among us. Yes great is the mystery of how God became flesh. I am thankful he didn’t send a second person, or a demi god but he came himself and purchased me with His own blood.
RE: I agree 100%. I hope i didn’t come across to the contrary in any of my statements.
LikeLike
October 26, 2009 at 5:51 am
..continued reply to CS…My basic point is that there are scriptures that speak of Jesus (The Son) as ONLY a man. Now you know and i know that Jesus after the incarnation was always God in the flesh, even at the point of death. So by no means am I trying to imply that Jesus was only a man, or that the Son was only a robe of flesh for the Spirit. As the scriptures do testify, He became a man. How ever, we can’t conclude that God prayed, God was tempted with evil, God was anointed by God, God has a God and a Father, or that God (who is Spirit) died on the cross. All of these things apply to man. Which means that God took on a genuine human nature….I just wanted to clear that up.
LikeLike
October 26, 2009 at 7:22 am
truthofgod I know what you mean. But I’m not sure altheist really wants to understand your point or for that matter any trinitarian will take us to bat on stressing the humanity. Yet, like you, the humanity and Divinity distinction in Christ is something that is much easier to grasp than a distinction in persons in God. We have a much more solid foundation keeping the distiction in the incarnation instead of between persons in God.
LikeLike
October 26, 2009 at 8:38 am
“cs” so good to “see” you again! I have been worried about you. I hope all is well. Do you still have the same email address? I sent you a message a couple of months (or so) ago but didn’t hear back from you. All the best to you!
Jason, please forgive my foray into something off-topic.
LikeLike
October 26, 2009 at 9:17 am
Sorry about the email thing, I thought I replied but my absent mindedness kicked in, again. 🙂 We are doing well. I pray you are well. I’ll find your email and reply! Thanks.
LikeLike
October 27, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Isn’t the whole godhead quite a mystery, whichever side you are on? On the one side, we try to reconcile the Father and Son relationship. On the other we try to comprehend how God can be fully divine and fully human. 100% of both qualities. It’s not logical.
We do both agree that Jesus Christ is God in flesh. And many of my Trinitarian colleagues even admit that they don’t think Jesus is inferior to the Father, or is a literal separate being. Some do, but many don’t.
LikeLike
October 28, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I haven’t carefully read through the last 15 comments or so, and from the looks of it, the conversation is carrying on fine without me. But I can’t resist jumping back in to comment on your comment, Luke. You said it’s not logical for God to be 100% God and 100% human. Mathematically, no, it isn’t because a single being can’t be more than 100% of anything. That’s why I think its best to avoid such language, and simply affirm that Jesus is fully God and fully man. This means Jesus has all the properties that make God God, and all the properties that make humans human. That is not illogical at all. Different, yes; illogical, no.
As for the Trinitarians you speak of, I would hope that they don’t think Jesus is (ontologically) inferior to the Father, given that Trinitarianism has always proclaimed all three persons to be equal. The same goes for the Son being a separate being. Trinitarianism maintains that God is a single being subsisting in three persons. So the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though three persons, are all one being: God. Any Trinitarian who would deny either of these is not a Trinitarian.
Jason
LikeLike
November 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Luke I can sympathize with trinitarians who believe God is wholly One. Jason, has written about this on onenesspentecostal.net. Yet in discussions with those who hold the view of 3 persons in one God they seem to stress “distinctness” to the point of separateness. Here is a quote from Matthew J. Slick
His “please note” comment holds no water.
Later on in the article he says this concerning the prayers of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.
The article is titled, Oneness and the word “person”
The trinity leans heavily in the direction of tritheism. That alone should make anyone question it’s doctrine. Yet, until the last two years my view of oneness was leaning toward Nestorianism, without really realizing it. It seems to me the lay Trinitarian leans closer to modalism then they realize. They give oneness examples of God. When pressed they begin to say it is a mystery and we can’t understand it. I do agree it is a great mystery of how God became fully man while remaining fully God.
LikeLike
November 3, 2009 at 6:22 am
CS, you are 100% correct. I’ve been a 3 year off-and-on debate with a friend of mine regarding this same issue. He has at times said that John 20:17 and Hebrews 1:8-10 implies that there are TWO Gods, but then later on had to recant that statement because i had to quickly bring to his attention that he contradicted himself when he insists that there is only ONE God. Either God is NUMERICALLY One or He is a UNIFIED One. There is a difference.
LikeLike
November 3, 2009 at 12:33 pm
truthofgod You got that right, there is a huge difference. We all can be a unified one.
LikeLike
November 3, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Jason in my comment with this stamp
November 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm I inadvertently gave the wrong web address to the Institute for Biblical Studies. The address I gave actually points to an anti-Oneness site. OPPPSSSS… sorry.
LikeLike
November 21, 2009 at 6:46 pm
truthofgod, you said:
“RE: NOT AT ALL WHAT SO EVER! I believe that Jesus is no other than God (Jehovah of the Old testament Prophets) manifested in the flesh. He is the Emmanuel “Translated: God with us”. The problem with trinitarian logic is that it doesn’t properly account for the passages which speak of the Son, Jesus of Nazareth’s genuine humanity. Some passages of scripture, at times, speak of Jesus separate from God, because of his genuine humanity. Now this does not anything away from his deity, but it does nothing else but speak of him being a man.”
I’m not sure what Trinitarians you’ve read or conversed with, but your thinking that the Trinitarian view doesn’t accord with Scriptural teaching about Jesus’ humanity is mistaken. Trinitarians will affirm with you that
1. Jesus is no other than God,
2. Jesus is Emmanuel,
3. Jesus is both fully God and fully human.
Whatever correct teaching you hold to regarding Jesus’ humanity, orthodox Trinitarians hold to that also.
LikeLike
November 21, 2009 at 7:18 pm
[…] to a post written on the blog of Oneness Pentecostal theologian Jason Dulle. It is titled “Arguing from Silence“. In this post Dulle addresses two arguments from silence that he still feels make a strong […]
LikeLike
December 7, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Praise the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Dr. Jason Dulle
I thank God by his Grace through Faith that he allowed me to come to Repentance, the water Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and the infilling of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) speaking in tongues as the Spirit give the utterance. I was formerly Baptist. I believe in the one true God that is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Naturally I know this is three, each is talked about in Scripture as a person but when Trinitarians start saying co-equal and they talk to each other that sound like the language of three separate Gods. Well, I do not totally know how to explain the Godhead and when I try to use just total Intellectual logic it becomes a philosophical cataclysmic confusion. Dr. David Bernard just preached a sermon called the Spirit of Jesus on 12/06/2009 it was anointed, for the revelation just comes spiritually of the Oneness of God as the Word is rightly divided.(simple)
Although I know God does use Intellect some times Theological Intellectual Scholars rule out the Supernatural aspect of God and do not realize God is intellectually way beyond man and angels etc.
The devil is a Intelligent being, he was an angel or maybe still an angel just a fallen one. If he would go to a Biblical Theological Seminary, Intellectually he would get all A’s. Remember he quoted scriptures too, just a small change in them.
God Bless You in Jesus name
LikeLike
December 7, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Jeff,
I’m not sure what the point of your comment is. Is it to malign theological education? If so, I’m not understanding why? From your statements I’m assuming you don’t have a theological education, and by your own admission you “do not totally know how to explain the Godhead.” While in a sense no one fully can, we should be able to do so in a basic sense. A theological education is aimed at helping people to better understand and explain who God is (among other things). By your own admission, then, it would seem to me that you should support theological education. After all, the man whose sermon you gleaned so much from has a Ph.D. in theological education. Did you stop to think that maybe that’s why his explication of the Godhead is so powerful–because he has become skilled through education, of exegeting and explaining Biblical doctrine?
BTW, I’m not a Doctor. 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
December 7, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jason,
Dr. David Bernard’s education may have some bearing upon his knowledge but I really believe that it’s the Holy Spirit that gives him the ability to put the scriptures together properly. There are many, many Biblical theological astute Scholars that do not come to the truth of the Oneness of God, the need of the baptism of the Holy Spirit Speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the ability nor the Baptism in Jesus name.
I have nothing against education but true revelation come by the Spirit.
Have a Jesus Day.
LikeLike
February 4, 2010 at 1:00 am
Jason,
My apologies if the answer to this is included above/elsewhere on site but, I am of the impression that Matthew 28:19 is a reference to titles: “…the Father (Jesus), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (Jesus)”.
Anyone,
The argument for One God is handled quite deftly here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/trinoneness.htm
Anyone (also),
What about Isaiah 9 and 6? How could it be that “…unto us a son is given:…and his name shall be called…The mighty God, The everlasting Father(the only time in the OT father is capitalized and it’s about Jesus), The Prince of Peace.”
I get that it’s a revelation -as Jeff said- it just appears to me that being “armed and loaded” is the way to be. If one can get that ALL from your “Father which is in Heaven” w/o benefit of “flesh and blood”, that’s awesome too. Bible study is a bit easier when one has informational answers though (this, spoken as one who has operated off of revelation -almost exclusively- only to be found lacking).
That is why the gratitude for an excellent teacher and the OnenessPentecostal.com site.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 8:33 am
Jason,
I’m not sure if you addressed this in this thread, for I only read the first third or so.
But you mentioned a lack of citation of Matthew 28:19 by Irenaues and Hermas. To my knowledge, however, Irenaues cites Matthew 28:19 in book 3 of “against heresies” ch 17 and Tatian makes use of it in his Diatesseron.
Jay
LikeLike