A response to

Matthew 28:19 (In the name of..)

Since the other response is not complete yet, here is another that complements some of the ideas. May it also be of help to those who seek the truth of God.

I saw that the allegation concerning Matthew 28:19 on 
still was not answered.

So below I will give some comments, perhaps you can use some.


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

If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye
therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the
United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require
that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in
purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are
the same physical entity. 

A physical entity is not the question here, what really bothers the
Muslim writing this article is that it are Divine names/persons.
They appear as Divine persons on many places, but he concentrates (that
is easier for him) on a 'physical entity'.
As he should know as Muslim, God's Omnipotency does not exclude such a
physical entity of Divine names/persons.

Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears
no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we
shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the
Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring
it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases
where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given
doctrine. Tom Harpur, religion editor of the Toronto Star says: 
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the
latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence
available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did
not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the
name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read
'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the dogma.
In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well
as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted
position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's
commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days did not
observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The command to
baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'" "For
Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103 

What Christian historians or UnChristian historians said about it is 
not the point, most of this information is from the last 3 centuries.
Also a 'missing link' or un-synopsis between Mark and Matthew is not 
the point.
The point is that every word of the Word of God has an exclusive 
meaning in the place where it is written as seen in 2 Peter 1:20-21.
So in the Muslim viewingpoint every Gospel has to be the same, but 
that is not the work of the Holy Spirit but of man.

Also the words of a religion editor are irrelevant as being witness 
to the time the events took place.
The sources as close to the event are only relevant.

This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since
1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard
reference for students of the Bible. It says: 
"This mission is described in the language of the church and most
commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this
point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a
formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord
Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)." 

This is like saying the prayers of Christians has only to be 'Let thy
kingdom come' and nothing else.
A similar or look-alike formula is not the point here.
Matthew 28:19 shows the very base of the Christian belief: worshipping
God the Father, His Son, through the Holy Spirit.
Those 3 names are and will be important, even crucial for our eternal

A number of other references confirm this fact such as The Dictionary of
the Bible by James Hastings (p. 1015), but the above quotations should
be sufficient for now. 
This realization was not arrived at lightly or based upon unfounded
whims. Indeed, internal as well as external evidence drove these
Christian scholars to their current realization. For example, these
Christian scholars observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this
command and then was taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a
complete lack of knowledge of this command.

This is only mentioned to show to Muslims reading the article, or better
said, give the impression that there is doubt about the Scripture.
Classical form of propaganda.

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'" Acts 2:38.

It is typical that this verse is not continued.
That shows that it really bother Muslims what follows.
The verse speaks further about the gift of the Holy Spirit, and 
further in vs 39 about the call of our God.
The 3 names.
And in vs 33 also.
It is therefore important to see that vs 33 explains the work of God is
done when they are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
We see as a repeating line in Acts that the baptism and the gift of the
Holy Spirit go together.
The baptism as the death and resurrection of Christ and the Holy Spirit
as gift of the Father.
Off course it is good to use at baptism words like in Matthew 28:19, but
the verses in Acts do not contradict the words but are showed from
another angle.
Returning to the prayer and the 'same' Gospel-theory, in Acts are
eyewitness reports of the work of God in many occassions and it shows
only what is necessary at any time.
An example for that in Acts 2 when there is speaking in other languages,
there it is more detailed described, while in Acts 19, only is said: in
other languages.
But the spiritual reader will see that it is the same sign that follows
the word (Mark 16:20)

If the baptism was not correct in Acts, the Holy Ghost was not given 
(as seen in Acts 19).
If the baptism was not correct in Matthew 28:19, Matthew would be
exposed before the death of Paul.
So that was then mentioned in one of the letters.
Peter was also exposed in Galatians.

These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that if
Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in the
name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the apostles
would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in the name of
Jesus Christ, alone. 

There are 'Christian' scholars denying that Jesus Christ was more 
than one good Jew.
Mostly it is just a matter of what is called 'Christian'.

As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of
Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a
heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at least
three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had, as
claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles (see section
6.13 for more). So we notice that not only does this verse never claim
that the three are one, or even that the three are equal, but most
scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very least the last
part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost")
was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was inserted by the
church long after Jesus' departure. 

This is only a suggestion.
The preaching to the Gentiles as a 'heated' debate was not a great
difference of opinion, it were others who wanted to divide the
Also the preaching to the Gentiles was not in stake, but the law that
they should be following.

'Inserted by the church' has to be proven historically.
I doubt that there is proof for such a theory.

On page 302 of his most powerful and well-researched 800 page book "The
Life of Jesus Critically Examined," Mr. David Friedrich Strauss says:
"…and after his resurrection, according to the synoptists, he gave the
disciples the command, Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them,
etc. (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; Luke xxiv. 47); i.e. go to them
with the offer of the Messiah's kingdom, even though they may not
beforehand have become Jews. Not only, however, do the disciples, after
the Pentecost, neglect to execute this command, but when a case is
thrust on them which offers them an opportunity for compliance with it,
they act as if they were altogether ignorant that such a direction had
been given by Jesus (Acts x., xi)" 

The Acts is not written as a specific, detailed, diary of every day 
of the disciples.
It is detailed where it has to be (Acts 2) and short were actually the
same things happen (Acts 19).
I do not think that this logic will ever be accepted by Muslim Scholars
or other scholars not accepting the Word of God as guidance in their
It's a matter of faith, belief.
Denying of Matthew 28:19 leads to denying of the Divine Son and Holy
Actually it is the work of the Holy Spirit that inspired the writers, 
so that the wisdom in those writings is above human logic.

The Muslim writer separated the 3 in Matthew 28:19 from the one
mentioned in Acts.
While it is all about the same thing: death of Christ, resurrection of
Christ, gift of Spirit.
Also in Acts the Jews do not want to accept -Jesus- as the Christ.
Therefore Jesus Christ is mentioned.
A devoted Jew would know that the Christ came from God according the

I think this whole article is just focussing on the 'formula' and
rejecting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time.
Because if Matthew 28:19 was deleted, he would not believe that baptism
to the name of Jesus Christ is justified.
So it is really about the Divinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Muslims mutilate the Holy Spirit, humble the Son, and replace the Father
with Allah.

In fact, the reason why the disciples did not carry out this command was
not because they were unfaithful to the command of Jesus (pbuh), rather,
it was because Jesus (pbuh) never said these words in the first place.
They were added by the Church later on. We shall see much more evidence
of this elsewhere throughout this book. 

It is never a fact, because the writer was not eyewitness nor the
writers of the reports he used for his statement.
It is a matter of faith.

The 'adding' part is interesting, I doubt there is historical evidence.

The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page