Matt 28:19,20 is a poor proof text

Rattigan350

Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,"

has never made sense to me. Where did Jesus get this about the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit? He never mentioned it prior. It was never taught in the Hebrew scriptures. When Jesus taught, it was not original but he taught from the prior scriptures, or he would have to give explanation. His saying was "It is written". There was nothing written about a 3 person God.

The eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood did not make sense, but he explained it at the memorial.

But this "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit," was stated on his ascending but with no explanation as to what it meant. How could they even do it without an explanation of what to do?

The Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge that has the same questions and doubts on that.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01/Page_435.html

Baptism
Origin and Practice

Conybeare has tried to prove that the original text of Matt 28,19 did not contain the baptismal command of the Trinitarian formula,
which were interpolated, according to him, at the beginning of the third century. But since the investigations of Riggenbach, the ordinary
reading may be considered the original. Jesus, however, can not have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his
resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16;19:5; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 1:13-15),
which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt 28:19 and then only again
Didache vii, 1 and Justin, Apol i, 61. It is unthinkable that the Apostolic Church thus disobeyed the express command of the Lord,
which it otherwise considered the highest authority. Occurrences like those of Acts 19:1-7 ought to have shown that the prescribed formula of baptism could not have been shortened to "the name of the Lord Jesus", if the character of baptism was to be retained as commanded. Judging from 1 Cor 1: 14-17, Paul did not know Matt 28:19; otherwise he could not have written that Christ had sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Moreover, had it been known at the Apostolic Council, the missionary spheres could not have been so separated that Peter was recognized as the apostle of the circumcision, Paul and Barnabas as apostles of the heathen (Gal 2:7,8); rather would the original apostles have claimed the universal apostolate for themselves.

Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula Matt 28:19 is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas. Nevertheless, this baptismal command contains the elements which constitute Christian baptism implies the immediate cooperation of the Father; and from the beginning Christian baptism has been considered the mediating agency of the Holy Spirit. Therefore while the formal authenticity of Matt 28:19 must be disputed, it must still be assumed that the later congregations recognized as the will of their Lord that which they experienced as the effect of baptism and traced it back to a direct word of Jesus."

It is just wrong to build a whole religion based on one scripture, whether it is Matt 28:19,20 or Matt 24:45 likewise or Matt 16 (upon this Rock). All you trinitarians, your support material has no basis. I'd say it is fake.

Phizzy

"All you trinitarians, your support material has no basis. I'd say it is fake. "

You could substitute the word "believers" for "tinitarians" in the above. We have no genuine words of Jesus at all, so far as we can tell.

cultBgone

saving for later

Wonderment

Me thinks the words, "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" are a post-biblical addition to the original text.

Perhaps more scholars would mention the possibility of an "interpolation" here if it were not for the fact tha the words as they appear in current Greek texts sound "sweet" to trinitarian ears, representative of the majority of scholars. There is nothing remotely close to this "trinitarian" formula anywhere in Scripture, hence the reluctance to admit it openly.

Crazyguy

I think this scriture was added to make the trinity work, bigger question were did the idea of being baptized in water come from another pagan religion???