Matthew 28:19

[Dave]

So whether or not Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic is prime in this situation we have older confirmation in history and by reason of scripture that show the verse to be in contradiction.

To accept the verse as valid says that the earlier source that Eusibius quoted was wrong and leaves contradiction in the accepted form.

Paul

Exactly Paul.

On and on scripture shows this verse to be in contradiction with the rest of NT scripture. Dave contends it is not, and that "in the name" really is suppose to mean we are to quote all three, such as the current matthew verse says. This is why I say he is inserting his opinions.

This is easily proven wrong over and over, such as when Peter healed the cripple at the gate of the temple called beautiful, he spoke: "In the name of Jesus, The Messiah of Nazareth, rise up and walk!"

Here is the same usage of the authority vested in the disciple from Jesus, by usage of "in the name," but we see Peter stating what would be the obvious usage here to us as a whole, a singular form, which duly agrees with scripture throughout the NT. Again, this section here witnesses to the singular usage of the term "in my name."

Dave still contends that all three are vested within one under this name, which is unproven scripturally, and is a form of heresy.

If one also looks at the current structure of the verse, the main thing being promoted is baptism, which we do not find in Eusbius's quote. Eusibius's quote promotes discipleship. The current form most likely got stuck in there to promote the "baptism is salvation" catholic method, which again, is heresy, as it does not promote true salvation through repentance.