Matthew 28:19

[37818]

Matthew 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: . . .

The anti-Trinitatians claim "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: . . ." Is unique and so not original to Matthew account.

 

[Conan]

And yet they have no proof whatsoever.

 

[JD731]

Matthew 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: . . .

The anti-Trinitatians claim "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: . . ." Is unique and so not original to Matthew account.

I am a Baptist Christian and therefore trinitarian in every way and consider anti - trinitarians to be ignorant and unsaved but what is their logic and reasoning for denying the doctrine based on Mt 28:19? They are not likely to show up on a Baptist only forum to explain themselves.

 

[37818]

I am a Baptist Christian and therefore trinitarian in every way and consider anti - trinitarians to be ignorant and unsaved but what is their logic and reasoning for denying the doctrine based on Mt 28:19? They are not likely to show up on a Baptist only forum to explain themselves.

It is a Baptist tenet our 27 New Testament books were authored in the first century.

 

[JD731]

It is a Baptist tenet our 27 New Testament books were authored in the first century.

I have no light on that passage except to say it must be an apostolic commission only pertaining to the 12 and 70 that were chosen by Jesus to preach his gospel to the Jews and may be in some way connected to the "gospel of the kingdom." I do not have any doubt that Jesus said it to them and that Luke was in that meeting and yet he quoted Peter some ten years later in the house of the Italian Cornelius, the first saved gentile, with the command of Acts 10:48. which was at least somewhat different.

I have no doubt about any scripture in my KJV but all must be reconciled contextually.

 

[37818]

I have no doubt about any scripture in my KJV but all must be reconciled contextually.

Can you prove your tenet? [In an another thread]

Matthew 28:19 is NOT a KJB issue here.