The Narrow Path Ministries

21centpilgrim,

You wrote:

We tend to read Matthew 2819 as current Americans with the assumption of the word ‘name’. It carries with it the description or meaning of authority, and therefore is not a proof text for the trinity like many assume.
People may then reply and say that only a person has authority, however the constitution has authority for one example the presence of a person via representation carries the authority.

Name (Grk. onoma) certainly carries the meaning of authority but by metonymy can also mean "person". In Matthew 28:19 where we find "in the name..." we have the Greek preposition eis , literally "into", rather than the preposition en, "in"). The scriptures inform us we are baptized "into" Christ so it seems to make sense that onoma refers to "person" rather than "authority".

Homer, just because a word can be translated a certain way doesn't mean that one's preferred meaning gets the win so to speak.

If 'name' here implies authority then singular 'name=authority' not 'names=authorities' makes sense as equally or perhaps more so than 'name=person'. So then the Acts accounts of baptizing in the name- singular'of Jesus is not a big omission or misdirection of the great commission.

21centpilgrim,

Did you consider the meaning of the Greek prepositions along with "names"?

See here something very useful:

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Greek%20Prepositions.pdf

thanks Homer

Homer wrote:21centpilgrim,

Did you consider the meaning of the Greek prepositions along with "names"?

See here something very useful:

http://www.onthewing.org/user/Greek%20Prepositions.pdf

That is a very useful chart.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Homer, so you think that 'into the name' would take away from a meaning of authority and favor name meaning a singular person?

Also, do you have any thoughts on the Holy Spirit not having a name? I would love to hear any interaction with the points I shared in the initial post on here.

Thanks

Hi Brother Alan, you wrote:Let me know what you think of this: https://carm.org/is-matthew-28-19-a-later-addition

Yes, there are other early writings that use the formula. The Didache has been dated to the first century by some. I am rather familiar with it.

However, the question still remains, "Why was baptism by the apostles as recorded in the book of Acts done only in the name of Jesus, if Jesus had commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Were the apostles disobedient, but baptizing in the name of Jesus only?

Paidion,
Two possible reasons for why the Scriptures refer to baptizing in the name of Jesus:
1.) That phrase, "baptizing in the name of Jesus", means baptizing by the authority given them by Christ.
2.) Besides the Trinitarian formula, this was an alternative formula.

I think #1 is more probable.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

Thank you, Brother Alan. Both of those seem to be possible ways of looking at the issue, though I still lean toward the explanation that I gave,.

Thanks for the reply, Paidion. Let's pray about this one. Peace.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan