Christ is The God Man -Jehovah in the flesh

Originally posted by MrGordon ↑

Although there is no proof, it is much more likely that the baptise in the name of Jesus was replaced in Matthew by the trinity personel at a later stage about 300 yrs after Jesus' death. It is clearly the odd man out.
-----------------
The commission Jesus gave at Matthew 28 was to Jews and Jewish proselytes. They were make Christian disciples of the ''nations'', meaning non Jews. The Jewish nation was in a dedicated relationship with Jehovah tracing back to the time the Law was given at Mt Sinai. -- Exodus 19:8.
This meant Jews only needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus whereas non Jews needed to be baptized ''in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit''.
(Matthew 28:19, 20) 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, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

Eusebius was excommunicated for maintaining the view that Christ was subordinate to the Father. However, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., he gave his support to the opposing view and was exonerated. There, serving as theological adviser to Constantine I, Eusebius extolled the emperor’s efforts to unify Christian doctrine. After Constantine’s death, Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine, a formal eulogy

Eusebius’ compromising stand at Nicaea apparently reflected a greater concern for his position than for Bible truth.

Expand

"They were make Christian disciples of the ''nations'', meaning non Jews. The Jewish nation was in a dedicated relationship with Jehovah tracing back to the time the Law was given at Mt Sinai. -- Exodus 19:8.
This meant Jews only needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus whereas non Jews needed to be baptized ''in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit''."

I think this is edging towards a creative interpretation
Do the baptismal formulations elsewhere in the NT make this Christian baptismal distinction between Jews and Gentiles ?
Most references are to "all" the Nations or people which would include the Jews wouldn't it ?

Otherwise instructions would be to preach and baptise with the triune formulation to Gentiles but just in the name of Jesus to Jews .. who had recently rejected him with conviction !
Are you saying that Peter, Paul and other early disciples did not baptise the newly converted in the name of Jesus ... regardless of who they were ?

.