Matthew 28:19 – Trinity corrupted verse

[theefaith]

Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:

“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38, WEB).

I don’t think Peter forgot Jesus' command so quickly, especially considering that Jesus said, “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you” (John 14:26).

Also, Luke’s and Mark’s version of the Great Commission don’t mention baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. They wrote:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15-16).

If we suspect that a verse has been corrupted from the original writing, then normally we would seek the oldest copy that we have; the older the manuscript the more likely that it is a faithful copy (remembering that this was many centuries before the invention of printing presses, so all books were written by hand). Unfortunately, we don’t have any New Testament manuscripts older than the 4th century AD, mainly because in AD 303 the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christian sacred books should be burnt. Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" prohibited Christians from assembling for worship, and ordered the destruction of their scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire. Very few manuscripts survived, and in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages which contained the end of Matthew are missing (which I think is suspicious!).

However, while we don’t have manuscripts from the first three centuries, we do have other documents where the writers have quoted from the copies of Matthew that they had access to during those times. In particular, Eusebius Pamphili, or Eusebius of Caesarea, was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He became a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

The Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics states, “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 21 times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching’, or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name', the latter form being the more frequent”.

Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page 148, states, "Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once."

So it seems as though the few copies of the Matthew manuscripts that they had were altered not long after the Council of Nicaea.

There is now even better proof than this though. It was known by the Catholic Church that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language. The fact that it exists is proof that God wanted it preserved. There have been many attempts to destroy the credibility of this very valuable Hebrew Gospel, because it is the only existing manuscript that proves Matthew 28:19 did not originally contain the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Catholics and Protestants have no other reason to cast doubt on the validity of this manuscript. In fact, early writers claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew:

“As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language” (Origen circa 210 A.D., quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4).

In 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB). To just see the last page, Dr. G. Reckart, of the Apostolic Theological Bible College, has published the pages showing the Hebrew text and the English translation of the end of Matthew 28 on a web page – see Mathew 28:19 Fraud Exposed, and follow the links in that page for more evidence and arguments that prove the verse was corrupted.

The translation into English of verses 19-20 is “Go, and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever”.

So it seems that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19 and the Catholics in general (including the Eastern Orthodox) have lied to the world!

From Acts 4 (WEB):

8) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “…
10) in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …
12) There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved!”​

Acts 2:38 the command to be baptized is in the name of Jesus not the baptism itself
For 2000 yrs the church has always baptized in the name of the father and the son and the Holy Spirit!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I found in the Britannica Encyclopedia 11th edition volume 3 pages 365-366 this Encyclopedia says Matthew 28:19 was changed from, "the name of Jesus Christ," to, " in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost."
In the Britannica Encyclopedia volume 3 page 82 it says everywhere in the oldest sources it states baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. The CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION page 53 says the early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ until the development of the Trinity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia volume 2 page 263 says that the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
Read other Encyclopedias such as, " HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION Volume 2 pages 377, 378; volume 2 page 389.

See my post #45 and see that the early church and church leaders- long before the Catholic Church was even a thought used the triune formula for baptism.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Marymog said:
I found a copy of the Catholic Encyclopedia v2 online and read all of page 263. What @BroRando and @BARNEY BRIGHT are alleging is simply false. I suspect they are relying on others for their information instead of doing the research for themselves.[/Quote\]

Yes it's true that I quoted some material online that said Matthew 28:19 had been adjusted or changed, but I didn't say I knew for a fact that this was true. I was simply answering a post of some material I found online that various Encyclopedias had said adjustments had been made to Matthew 28:19. However none of the people who I quoted I don't believe we're trying to disprove the Trinity, they're not JW or non-trinitarians. They just found very old sources that showed that Matthew 28:19 had been adjusted. So I wasn't trying to say anything other than the fact I had found some people online who were saying that various Encyclopedias were saying that Matthew 28:19 had been adjusted or changed.

It really doesn't concern me that much if Matthew 28:19 has or hasn't been adjusted. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that Matthew 28:19 has any kind of Trinity doctrine teaching there. There's no place in Matthew 28:19 that says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person or that all three are coequal or coeternal. Plus Jesus says himself in Matthew 28:18 that all authority had been given to him. I don't believe that someone gave The Only True God his authority, he has always had his authority. So since someone gave Jesus his authority that someone has to be Jesus Father and God.

 

[Wrangler]

Until the JWs (and/or any other Anti-Trinitarians) came along and made a fantastic discovery! And that discovery was that the Holy Trinity is not found in the Bible.

It is a simple truth; the holey trinity is not found in the Bible - not the word and not the doctrine. Simply admit that there is no verse that says something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, who are co-substantial, co-eternal and co-equal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. Then we can move on. Thanks!

Please spare us the 'yabut if you consider these 25 verses' you can synthesize whatever doctrine you want with such an arbitrary construction. I am content to let the word of God stand as it is - without adding to or taking away to fit a popular doctrine.

As one observer noted, the doctrine of the trinity does NOT bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. That, my friend, is a dead give away. I have never heard a rational explanation for how the trinity does not violate the singular pronoun of the 1C. You shall have no other gods before me. I invite you now to explain how disregarding this commandment that is so important, God put it first, is not violated by the inherently contradictory trinity doctrine. (Me is singular. Trinity is plural, except for when it aint).

 

[BroRando]

The trinitarian church claims Peter is their first Pope and that their church foundation was built on this rock (Peter). Remember, the trinitarian church rejects that Jesus Christ is their Rock. However, one should note that over and over again this trinitarian church rejects and denies the teachings of this First Pope?

For instance, Peter Blesses and Praises the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in (1 Peter 1:3) What Name was Jesus referring too when he prayed 'Our Father Hallowed by Your Name'

Yet, today the Baptism that the Apostle Peter taught is rejected with disdain. We are told it is deceptive, untruthful, a fallacy, and a lie. Well then, is the First Pope of the trinitarian church a liar? I mean, if a person claims being Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ is anti-Christian. Then is Pope Peter with his lofty and exalted title being anti-Christian?

Or should I be saying anti-Trinitarian?

He's one or the other, don't you think? I say he was Anti-Trinitarian because I never see him making a case for the three separate persons theology in the Bible.

 

[Davy]

Matthew 28 (WEB): (19) “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you”.

When I was baptised, about 27 years ago, I was insistent that I should be baptised in Jesus’ name, and not in the name of “the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, as is mentioned in Matthew 28:19. I was convinced of the error of the Trinity doctrine, and I strongly suspected that this was a corrupted verse – but I had no evidence to support that suspicion at that time. Now, 27 years later, and after someone on this forum claimed that they had evidence of the corruption, I have researched it and finally found evidence that vindicates my suspicion. This is a brief summary of what I found.

My suspicions were mainly based on the fact that his disciples didn’t obey that command. There are only four cases which are recorded in the New Testament where it mentions the disciples baptising in somebody's name, and in all cases they were baptised in the name of Jesus only. In particular, when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, just days after Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19, he said:
....

Totally unfounded. There are manuscripts texts that prove the Matthew 28:19 verse was not a later addition. And the 'idea' that the oldest... New Testament manuscripts is the most accurate is a FALSE idea, and a doctrine of supporters of Wescott & Hort's corrupt translation from the Alexandria, Egypt manuscript. This is why your attack on the Greek Majority Texts, which make up the majority of existent New Testament Greek manuscripts, showing the most usage by the early Church, appears early in your false argument.

_____________________________________________________________________

From TorahResource (Matthew 28:19: A Text Critical Investigation)

"It is not uncommon to hear the notion that the tripartite phrase in Matthew 28:19 is suspect on text critical grounds, but when one consults the data itself, such claims are entirely unfounded. Every extant Greek biblical manuscript that contains this verse of Matthew has the tripartite phrase."

"One would expect that if, indeed, Matthew’s original (whether one presumes a Greek or Hebrew original, or both) did not include the tripartite phrase, that at least some early witnesses to this original would have remained. But not one single witness, early or late, gives evidence that 28:19 ever existed without the tripartite phrase. When we look at the versions the same situation obtains. The Syriac Peshitta (in all of its extant witnesses), the Vulgate, the Coptic, the Slovak versions—all have the tripartite phrase."

 

[BroRando]

Argument is mute. NT manuscripts came into existence hundreds of years after the NT was written in the first century.

But not one single witness, early or late, gives evidence that 28:19 ever existed without the tripartite phrase.

The Bible itself spews out the deceptive theology by how the Apostles Baptized. These scriptures are foreign to the person who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.


So how were Christians baptized?

“With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)

Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

“But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)

“Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)

“On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)

 

[Davy]

Argument is mute. NT manuscripts came into existence hundreds of years after the NT was written in the first century.


The Bible itself spews out the deceptive theology by how the Apostles Baptized. These scriptures are foreign to the person who rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savoir.


So how were Christians baptized?

“With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)

Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

“But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)

“Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)

“On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)

The manuscript evidence is against your theory, even Wescott & Hort's translation, which they claim is the earliest Greek text from Alexandria. (see Enoch111's post above.)

 

[BroRando]

The manuscript evidence is against your theory, even Wescott & Hort's translation, which they claim is the earliest Greek text from Alexandria. (see Enoch111's post above.)

Show Wescott & Hort this scripture:

Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." (Acts 2:38)

One lord One baptism one faith

 

[Davy]

Show Wescott & Hort this scripture:

Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." (Acts 2:38)

One lord One baptism one faith

See Enoch111's post #22. You haven't gotten past that evidence he presented about Wescott & Hort yet, showing they SUPPORTED the existence of the trinity passage in Matthew 28:19.

 

[BroRando]

See Enoch111's post #22. You haven't gotten past that evidence he presented about Wescott & Hort yet, showing they SUPPORTED the existence of the trinity passage in Matthew 28:19.

Davy... Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior today so you can be saved. Repent -- be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ -- and your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the free GIFT of holy spirit.

It's not difficult unless you don't believe. Don't fake it because trying to fool holy spirit is unforgivable.

Wishing you All the Best!
Brother Rando

 

[Davy]

Davy... Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior today so you can be saved. Repent -- be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ -- and your sins will be forgiven and you will receive the free GIFT of holy spirit.

It's not difficult unless you don't believe. Don't fake it because trying to fool holy spirit is unforgivable.

Wishing you All the Best!
Brother Rando

Scooting the evidence Enoch111 posted still, I see.

I've been a believer on Jesus Christ a long, long, long time bud. So may my Heavenly Father and His Son REBUKE YOU, for trying to infer to others that I'm not a Christian, you white-washed wall!

 

[Davy]

By your response, I assume you have rejected being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?

Nowhere in anything I have written do you have reason to believe such a LIE.

 

[Davy]

It just goes to show you, when you counter doctrines of men with what is actually substantiated by God's Word, and by real history, instead of some man's pseudo-history (like Charles Russel), then those can't stand being corrected, and they become blasphemous which will only get them God's rebuke.

 

[Marymog]

By your response, I assume you have rejected being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?

Hi BroRando,

When one is Baptized using the Trinitarian method it IS done in the name of Jesus Christ. “Baptize all in the name of the Father, SON and Holy Spirit”. They are three in one. Who taught you to separate them?

John 14:10

Curious Mary

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

We are born again in (water) baptism and we also then receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
It is (water) baptism that we become children of God and enter the New Covenant.
But again this thread is not about that.

Some people are dunked in water and just get wet. Some people go to church and are dead, empty vessels without Jesus in their hearts, pretending. The letters to seven churches in Revelation speak of many who are not right with the Lord, yet all of them were water baptized.
The Holy Spirit confirms His presence with your spirit - there is no doubt, you know He is there.
John 3:3

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I firmly believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - this is separate and distinct from being baptized into the Body of Christ unto Salvation.
Our salvation does NOT begin with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - No scripture states that. As a matter of fact - the scriptures state the opposite.

I do not have time right now to list the order laid out in scripture by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles - I am working.
PEACE to you Brother

God's calling towards salvation is a process. Enlightenment happens gradually as the blindness is removed. But there was a distinct moment of clarity, when I believed. It is true, you believe in Jesus, ask God for forgiveness, He cleanses your sins and that could happen in one day, you become born again and now are a Temple of the Holy Spirit, Who could be received at that time as well apart from the ceremony of water baptism that could happen at a latter time. I had a divine appointment with Jesus and The Holy Spirit confirmed His presense long before I got water baptized.
So it happens at different times for some, which is why after you belief in Christ, you are encouraged to ask for the Holy Spirit. We are baptized into Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. The disciples fully believed in Christ long before they received the Holy Spirit. It was quite different then. Christ had to leave before the Spirit could be sent. Now one can receive them together. The true Christian is a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

See my post #45 and see that the early church and church leaders- long before the Catholic Church was even a thought used the triune formula for baptism.

As I told Marymog,
Yes it's true that I quoted some material online that said Matthew 28:19 had been adjusted or changed, but I didn't say I knew for a fact that this was true. I was simply answering a post of some material I found online that various Encyclopedias had said adjustments had been made to Matthew 28:19. However none of the people who I quoted I don't believe we're trying to disprove the Trinity, they're not JW or non-trinitarians. They just found very old sources that showed that Matthew 28:19 had been adjusted. So I wasn't trying to say anything other than the fact I had found some people online who were saying that various Encyclopedias were saying that Matthew 28:19 had been adjusted or changed.

It really doesn't concern me that much if Matthew 28:19 has or hasn't been adjusted. I don't believe nor have I ever believed that Matthew 28:19 has any kind of Trinity doctrine teaching there. There's no place in Matthew 28:19 that says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person or that all three are coequal or coeternal. Plus Jesus says himself in Matthew 28:18 that all authority had been given to him. I don't believe that someone gave The Only True God his authority, he has always had his authority. So since someone gave Jesus his authority that someone has to be Jesus Father and God.

You will find nowhere in the scriptures that the Apostles used that exact phrase, "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit," when baptizing people. Instead people were "baptized in the name of Jesus and there was nothing wrong with that. (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5) So if any person or religious organization says it's wrong to baptize people in the name of Jesus Christ because they're not using the exact phrase, "baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Spirit," those people who are saying you were not baptized right, because they're saying the phrase, "baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit" were not used when you were baptized, don't listen to them, there's nothing wrong with being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[keithr]

You are still promoting your fairy tales. "Every Greek copy of Matthew was corrupt"! Really? And you expect Christians to believe this rubbish?

Why do you think it is rubbish? You need to realise that the English translations of the Bible that we have are not perfect. I'm sure you must be aware that 1 John 5:7 (KJV) was a corrupted verse, so why can't other verses also be corrupted? Here's what the Cambridge Bible Notes says about 1 John 5:7 -

For there are three that bear record in heaven] If there is one thing that is certain in textual criticism, it is that this famous passage is not genuine. The Revisers have only performed an imperative duty in excluding it from both text and margin. External and internal evidence are alike overwhelmingly against the passage. A summary of both will be found in Appendix D. But there are three facts, which every one should know, and which alone are enough to shew that the words are an interpolation. (1) They are not found in a single Greek MS. earlier than the fourteenth century. (2) Not one of the Greek or Latin Fathers who conducted the controversies about the doctrine of the Trinity in the third, fourth, and first half of the fifth centuries ever quotes the words. (3) The words occur first towards the end of the fifth century in Latin, and are found in no other language until the fourteenth century. The only words which are genuine in this verse are, For there are three that bear record, or more accurately, For those who bear witness are three: ‘three’ is the predicate; for ‘witness’ see on 1Jn_1:2.

So all the early Christians were complicit in a conspiracy to destroy the true Bible and promote a corrupted Bible????

No, obviously not all Christians were involved - most were just the victims of the deception (and it wasn't destroying the Bible - we're talking about altering one verse). It was the Roman's persecution that destroyed most of the Christian Scriptures and other writings (and church buildings, etc.). That just made it easier for the church leaders to alter the few remaining manuscripts that they had. Don't forget that this was long before printing presses were invented, so books were not so prevalent and easy to produce as they are in our day, and most people couldn't read and write.

 

[keithr]

You believe that every Greek copy of Matthew we have has been copied from corrupted version(s)? If you believe that wouldn’t it be logical to say that we have to question everything in Matthew?

It would only be logical to question every verse in Matthew if you thought that every verse had been altered. But I'm only talking about one verse, so no, I don't think it's logical to dismiss all of the book just because one sentence has been altered. But we need to be aware of it and take it into account. It's wrong for someone to alter the text and make it appear that Jesus said something that he didn't. John wrote about the Book of Revelation:

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book. If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).​

and likewise God warned the Israelites to not to alter his words:

"Whatever thing I command you, that you shall observe to do. You shall not add to it, nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).​

Jesus condemned the Pharisees and scribes for adding their own rules and commandments, and we too need to be wary that men have added to the New Testament writings when they should not have:

Mark 7 (WEB):

6) He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7) But they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8) “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.”
9) He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
...
13) making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”​

For your hypothesis to be correct someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading. That is quite a conspiracy theory you are putting forth and that conspiracy requires a level of control that did not exist at that time.

I thought what I wrote explained it. The Romans destroyed most Christians Scriptures, with a few obviously having been kept safe. Those few were not replaced, just altered by adding a few words, and then every new copy copied the alteration. Why do you think that level of control did not exist at that time?

The FACT is we have historical Christian writings that talk about how Christians were using the trinitarian method in baptism in the Apostolic age and we still are today; 2,000 years later. Instead of coming up with a logical argument to dispute any of that you just say they were wrong. That’s not an intellectual defense. That is just your opinion....in my opinion

We have historical Christian writings that talk about how Christians were baptising in the name of Jesus only too, for example the quote I gave in post #73 which said "In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread". Those and the New Testament record of baptisms (which are only in the name of Jesus) are part of the logical argument that I've shared in this thread - it's not just me saying it's wrong just because I want it to be wrong; I always give reasonings and evidence to support what I say, otherwise it would be pointless to say anything!