Anti-Trinitarianism

You say, "Matthew 28:18 is another verse that has been horribly abused and misused. Firstly this verses authenticity is in question due to the fact that this formula of baptism only appears in this verse and all other baptismal formulas in the entire New Testament are in the name of Jesus only." I think you mean Matthew 28:19? The fact that this triadic formula for baptism is only explicitly found once no more brings in to question its authenticity then does the phrase "first begotten of the dead" in Revelation 1:5 being found only once. If this is your reasoning for questioning the authenticity of a verse, then surely there are many other verses which you would have to question. First of all Matthew 28:19 is found as it reads in the KJV in most manuscripts, Greek or otherwise. To say that it has been dubiously added to every manuscripts from the 4th century onward is quite naive. I guess it comes down to a matter of faith though. I believe God has preserved His words and requires us to have every word to live by (Matthew 24:35, Luke 4:4). You say, "Baptism was in no way unique to christianity-- in fact the greeks practised baptism to demonstrate that one was following a new philosophy of a philosopher or teacher. This parallelism is broken in Matthew 28:19 where you are not baptised in the name of your teacher "Jesus" but in the name of the Holy Ghost and God!" Really, Greek philosophers? This is totally irrelevant. The command of baptism was not modelled after Greek practice, it was modelled after Jewish practice. The Jews baptized people from other nations who sought to become proselytes and sojourn with Israel and the one true Creator God (http://www.jewsforjesus.org...). Titus 3:5 and Romans 6:3-4 tells us the symbolic meaning of baptism---we have been washed of our sins and have been buried with Christ (hence immersion) and we arise into new life which also pictures being dead to sin and the promise of the future resurrection. Baptism has nothing to do with following a teacher, it has do with recognizing what Jesus Christ has done for us. You say, "Its interesting to note that however that Hebrew Matthew reads. . ." Matthew was written in Greek not Hebrew. People spoke Greek, Latin and sometimes Aramaic during Matthew's time, but very few people could speak Hebrew let alone read it. Only those of the Sanhedrin were typically the ones who could read and write Hebrew. Besides this, there is no record of there ever being an original Hebrew edition of the gospel account according to Matthew. You say, "It is also interesting to note that I am unaware of any instance in which Eusebius quotes the current version of Matthew 28:19. . . I am not aware of any instance of the 21 instances that i know of where he uses the threefold formula of baptism!" Eusebius (of Cesarea?) is irrelevant since many other early Christians quote v. 19 as it reads in the KJV (http://www.answering-islam.org...). Eusebius was heavily influenced by Origen of Alexandria and therefore had corrupt doctrines as well as scriptures. The codices B and Aleph today represent this corruption. He could have quoted a corrupt manuscript from Origen which was altered to say "in my name" rather than "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Origen did not believe in the unity of substance or essence which trinitarians proclaimed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In either case, your argument is fallacious as Eusebius did quote v. 19 as read in the KJV: Eusebius (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3, 323 A.D.) "We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy." (http://thetrinity.info...) Just as with 1 John 5:7, early Christian writers attest to the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. Your one example of Eusebius is found wanting when compared to the preponderance of manuscript evidence and early Christian quotation. You say, "The apostles seem to also have been unaware of the supposed command of Matthew 28:19!" Your only given verses of which can be attributed any real dispute are Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48 and 19:5 which say deal explicitly with being baptized in the name of the Lord. The other verses you gave do not explicitly state that one is baptized only in the name of the Lord but that they "call on the name of the Lord," "are justified in the name of the Lord," or "baptized into Jesus" as opposed to being baptized in His name. With that said, let me explain why the verses in Acts do not negate the veracity of Matthew 28:19. Matthew 28:19, although a sure trinitarian formula, was not given as a commanded verbal formula to be proclaimed at every baptism. Instead Christ only says that they are to baptize them, of which baptism is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. If this was a clear command to repeat the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" at every baptism, then why in Acts 8:36-38 do we not have any proclamation of the triadic formula or any proclamation for that matter (such as "in the name of the Lord"). Indeed both Matthew 28:19 and the verses in Acts speak of the meaning of baptism not a formulaic proclamation to be announced at every baptism. Philip in Acts 8:37 asks the Ethiopian man if He believes in Jesus Christ, and upon affirmation of his belief, Philip baptizes him. When, in Acts, it says that they were baptized in the name of the Lord, this signified that they were Christians, and this was the meaning of "in the name of the Lord." The truth that baptism is in the name of the Lord (regardless if a formula is proclaimed at the baptism) and in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit is vindicated by such verses as John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 14:16-18, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:5-7, Colossians 1:15-19, Colossians 2:9, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 2:3, Titus 1:4, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:3,8,10, Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:15:16 (compared to Romans 8:16 and Ephesians 1:13), 1 John 5:7, Jude 1:24,25 (compared to 1 Corinthians 1:7-9 and Colossians 1:21,22), Revelation 1:8-18, Revelation 4 (compared to Revelation 3:21), Revelation 5:5-9 (compared to Genesis 49:8-10, Hebrews 7:14, and Revelation 22:16), Revelation 19:16 (compared to Psalm 136:3, 1 Timothy 6:15, and Revelation 17:14), Revelation 20:12 (compared to Acts 10:42, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Timothy 4:1, and 1 Peter 4:5), Revelation 21:5-7 and Revelation 22:12,13 (compared to 2 Corinthians 5:17, Isaiah 41:4, Isaiah 44:6, and Isaiah 48:12). By these verses we see that 1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 are vindicated.