let us read
Mat 28:19
Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
hmmmm if they were one, shouldn't have been In the name of the Father, The son OR the Holy spirit???
based on the Grammatical structure huh????
i dont think so, besides you cant explain who was LET US create man in genesis ....
Au contraire, mon ami!
Let's rehash the Matthew passage, shall we?
...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
In GREEK (not English), if the article (the) is repeated in a list, it emphasizes the distinction to be made between the items. In fact, the inclusion of "and" makes this even more forceful. Thus "the Father...and the Son...and the Holy Spirit" in GREEK emphasizes that these three "items" are distinct from each other in some way. So far, I think that you and I agree.
However, if the writer intended to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were distinct and separate ONLY and that they had nothing
essential in common (i.e., that they were three different sorts of things, so to speak), he should have said "in the name
s" (note the plural). However, the author says "name." By using this grammatical structure (I wish we all spoke Koine Greek, but alas it's a dead language!), the writer forces the reader to understand that these three "items" share one name. In context, the name is obviously the name of God, YHWH (Yahweh). But to share the name is to share the essence, identity, or nature of the thing. To sum up, this one sentence says (not just implies) that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are both distinct from each other yet one
in essence.
Obviously, this falls short of a full affirmation along the lines of the Athanasian Creed. However, one can easily see how passages such as this made the Athanasian conclusion almost inevitable, strange as it may be.
I can see how my previous exposition of "let us make man in our image" missed the mark of your objection. So please permit me to try again.
The puzzle for us is what "us" and "our" might mean when the Triune God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". From a trinitarian point of view, there are two possibilities. First, perhaps the persons of the trinity spoke to each other, in which case the dialog is internal to the godhead. Or second, the Triune God spoke to the heavenly host (angels). Either way, plural pronouns are acceptable. For in one case there is a plurality of speakers, and in the other case a singular speaker who subsists as three persons.
I hope that clarifies the position. If I've still missed your point, please try to show me how. I don't want to talk past you.