thedidache.com just going to place this here, but essentially the original document translated there is commonly dated to before AD 150 and it includes essentially the same text as Matthew 28:19

@eques Thanks. Perhaps that is the origin of the verbage!

There were theories that Didache borrowed from Matthew (or perhaps even vice versa) but that's been generally discarded in favor of both originating in a similar group of Jewish Christians. The point is that the Didache is dated to 150 or before, so well before the Council of Nicea approved the Trinitarian doctrine.

That reference contains NO evidence whatsoever. Here is evidence that shows Matt 28:19 is original: • Ignatius: Letter to Magnesians (<110 AD) ch 13 • Didache (<150 AD?): ch 7:1 • Justin Martyr (<165 AD): First Apology 13:5, 6; 61 • Diatessaron (<170 AD): ch 55:7 • Irenaeus, (~180 AD), “Against Heresies”, book III, ch 17:1 • Tertullian (~200 AD), “Prescription Against Heretics”, ch 20 • Tertullian (~200 AD), “On Baptism”, ch 13 • … plus many more

I couldn't find any Trinitarian formula (let alone a baptismal formula) in your first source: newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm Please see if any of them do because if the first doesn't...

I am at a loss to understand your comment. Trinitarians are fiercely monotheistic. The reference you quoted also says "the Son, The Father and the Holy Spirit" in Ch 13:1. Didache says, "Baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit". Have words lost their meaning here?

See also hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/…

I also note that all the references in your source jesuswordsonly.com/home/16-hebrew-matthew/… only use secondary sources from the early 20th century - not one primary source is quoted. Scholarly opinion has changed since 1910.

@DrPeterMcGowan The only authentic source I could find from your list that recite the baptismal formula was the Didache, which may have have been used for Mat 28:19. Please provide contextual quotes.

@JesusSaves I don't think DrPeterMcGowan was asserting that those sources have the same baptismal format, but rather that those sources have various Trinitarian statements all dating to well before the Council of Nicea

As they say in Missouri, "Show me"! Besides, the reference to Nicaea is just a suggestion. Do you not agree that it is problematic in that it clashes with the actual practice of the Apostles?

@DrPeterMcGowan I did find a quote from Tertullian who quoted a baptismal formula. It’s unknown if his source was the Didache or Matthew 28:19.

@Ruminator I agree that It clashes with the practice of the Apostles. I hope to conduct some critical research into this verse in the future.

@DrPeterMcGowan You wrote: "...I am at a loss to understand your comment. Trinitarians are fiercely monotheistic...". "The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity", the false deity of Catholicism and Protestantism is a fabrication of the Catholics employing bizarre semantics to have three distinct deities and yet call oneself a "monotheist". I can assure you that such "monotheism" is not one that Jews recognize. May I ask you how many heads your conception of God contains?

@eques There is no written evidence without assumptions that the post Nicene definition of the Trinity existed before it was introduced in 325 and subsequently refined. The Trinity doctrine is not the presence of three members, but that all three make up the one God. There are additional events of this doctrine.

@Ruminator your comment seems to be getting off-topic and angling towards attacking the believes of others rather than the scriptural content. That said, your assertions do not show familiarity with what the doctrine actually means (specifically what does the unity of God mean or what does a Person in God mean, etc)

@JesusSaves the Doctrine didn't come out of a vacuum though, did it? Even if you can't find an explicit description in the same way as after (which wouldn't be unreasonable given the councils role often was to clarify and outline doctrine), there surely are trinitarian elements inferred from Scripture such as the beginning of the Gospel of John which equates the Word with God and with Jesus Christ.

There is of course a great unity between God, his son and his spirit. The Devil is in the details. In Trinity dogma God, his son and his spirit are all "eternally co-equal" and "of the same substance". It is these specifics that were codified and made the basis of salvation in the creed and have created the 3 headed monster god. Jesus said "I and my father are one". Of course, he meant they functioned in unity of purpose. He also said "My father is greater than I am". And Hebrews says that Jesus substance is an "impression" of God's substance. IE: They are not the same substance.

I agree with Ruminator. The claim by @DrPeterMcGowan that Trinitarianism is “fiercely monotheistic” is laughable. Monotheism is belief one absolute God as found in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). All the “one God” verses in the Bible are exclusively to the Father (John 5:44, 17:3; Mark 10:18; 12:28-34; Romans 3:30; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5, etc.). Jesus is the Son of the one God. Not the God that He is the Son of.

@Ruminator as I already said this is getting off-topic, but your assertions about Trinitarian ideas are a) what the Trinitarians already sorted out centuries ago so it's laughable to think you found something they missed and b) show a significant lack in understanding of what Trinitarians mean.

@eques Well free to have a good laugh on me but if I'm not mistaken that's kind of what they thought about Luther just a few hundred years ago.

@Ruminator, you are defending the doctrine started by the church and state (Roman Catholic Church) and enforced with a sword for over 1000 years. If the Bible is one’s final authority for faith and practice, then the Vatican’s doctrine isn’t.

@Ruminator Luther with his "Scripture alone" still maintained belief in the Trinity. Your answer still lacks any primary sources and at best links to an "independent ministry website" not any works on biblical heremeneutics nor contemporary theological texts.

@eques So your concern then is not that it is absurd to think that the Catholic Church and the Protestants might be mistaken even if that mistake has prevailed a long time? But rather that though one may change the soteriology of the Catholics but one must "still maintain belief in the Trinity" or THEN contradicting them is not absurd?

@Ruminator on the contrary my point was that Luther who you brought up as someone that was "laughed at" centuries ago still concluded using Bible (which @JesusSaves referenced in his post) as the "final authority". So someone else using the same authority concluded the same way the Catholics and Orthodox, etc did centuries earlier (effectively re-working what had already been done as far as Scripture study goes)

@Ruminator It is absurd that the Christ would take such care to teach, to suffer and die, to send the Apostles out to preach and to send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and then let the Truth he brought be forgotten or lost. "Behold I will be with you until the consummation of the world"

So you are arguing that since Luther caught one Catholic "error" he would have caught them all? That doesn't follow. People catch errors one at a time a lot of the time; strictly speaking, all the time.

It is absurd as is existence (an uncaused cause) itself and yet... here we are. Paul said: ESV Romans 8:20 For the [new] creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope

@Ruminator no, reverse it. Using the same premises your colleague was proposing "Bible as final authority", Luther concluded in favor of the existing doctrine. In other words, Luther didn't find the Trinity to conflict with a Scripture alone viewpoint.

@Ruminator And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. John 14:16-17

Christ promises to send the spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit, and yet you are assuming the truth would be entirely forgotten and overrun.

The promise of John 14:16-17 is to the Twelve and the elect Jews who were the beneficiaries of the new covenant with the law written on their hearts. In the "Church Age" (the body of Christ) we are told to "study" the scriptures:

1 Tim 4:15 Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all.

But the main thing is:

1 Kings 19:18 “Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”

@Ruminator "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Timothy 3:15

@Ruminator Huh? How does that relate?

It means that there is a "church within a church" that is true.

I think we're off the main track here...

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle" 2 Thessalonians 2:14

@Ruminator except you miss a detail. The "church within the church" are those Israelites who held to what God had revealed. The point I was making is that what God revealed via "the Spirit of Truth" cannot have been lost.

It isn't lost. But you're making up a principle that truth cannot be forgotten and still be true - not so. Luther?

Anyhow, the question is why the apostles didn't adhere to the Matthean formula. Feel free to post your answer to that question. Thanks. Bye.

@Ruminator no. not my point either. My point is God intentionally revealed a new covenant where we would worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, yet you are arguing (implicitly) that the Truth He revealed was immediately lost and forgotten until someone came along later and "rediscovered it"

@Ruminator yes, hence my counterpoint to your assertion of alteration with the Didache which is 200 years older at least than the Council of Nicea and contains the identical phrasing thus casting doubt on the "alteration" theory

Again, the question is why the apostles didn't adhere to the Matthean formula. Feel free to post your answer to that question. Thanks. Bye.

@Ruminator hence my counterpoint to your assertion of alteration with the Didache which is 200 years older at least than the Council of Nicea and contains the identical phrasing thus casting doubt on the "alteration" theory. OR IN OTHER WORDS, I'm questioning the assumptions of your answer