Did you mean to say "developed in the fourth century?
Negative; the Church worked out the Trinitarian formula over at least two centuries. Suffice to say I may well have been declared a Heretic with Arius. The question of "Trinity" in Scripture is an interesting one, based on Matthew 28:19 which did not exist in any MSS well into the 4th century and may well have been a "convenient" addition.
It is possible, sure.
In any event, I accept Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
That is enough for me.
By those standards, the Latter Day Saints or the Jehovah's Witnessess might be fellow believers with you. Or even the Oneness Pentecostals, most of them anyway.
Is there anything in Scripture analogous to baptism in the Triune name? NO!
Aside from the baptismal formulation in Matthew, which you so very well expound on, there is nothing explicit. The very tag of Unitarianism means one God and no 'personages', if I understand the tag correctly. Would you consider that correct?
I had not thought that you considered the Pauline epistles so highly (even more if you consider Acts, written by Luke, first a Petrine apostle, then a Pauline one) and take as much from Paul as proofs of your faith. Very interesting.
Not correct. The so-called "Trinitarian Formula" was a subject of fierce debate, settled on only in the First Ecumenical Council called by the first real leader of the Catholic Church - Constantine.
Aside from the baptismal formulation in Matthew, which you so very well expound on, there is nothing explicit. The very tag of Unitarianism means one God and no 'personages', if I understand the tag correctly. Would you consider that correct?
Understand it any way you wish. Even though many Catholics have told me what I believe, I have said it all with "In any event, I accept Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
I had not thought that you considered the Pauline epistles so highly (even more if you consider Acts, written by Luke, first a Petrine apostle, then a Pauline one) and take as much from Paul as proofs of your faith. Very interesting.
I think no more of Paul than any of the New Testament personages. He was; however, unique in that he was chosen specifically by Jesus to preach to the Gentiles.
Paul was the big "I" but he was careful to distinguish when he was speaking for Jesus and not the big "I".
I am surprised that the Catholics on this forum don't have a more positive outlook toward Paul. After all, he did relegate women to second class status in keeping with the official position of the Catholic Church.