Well, Eusebius wrote the following which proves my case:
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing 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,'” (Eusebius’ Letter to the Church in Caesarea to the people of his Diocese; June, 325)
Not every Apostle mirrors exactly what the other Apostles wrote. I'm sure you know that. This shows your desperation.
I keep telling you that the RCC did not exist at the time when this imagined act occurred.
Wonderful verses about Pentecost that perfectly aligns with Trinitarianism. It's always by Jesus Christ's authority by that which is performed by his followers. In the same way it's by Christ's authority, by virtue of the Cross, that we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The onus was on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you have yet to do so.
Wonderful verses about powerful signs manifested by believers. That perfectly aligns with Trinitarianism.
Again, it's always by Jesus Christ's authority by that which is performed by his followers. In the same way it's by Jesus Christ's authority, by virtue of the Cross, that we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The onus was on you to prove that Matt 28:19 was changed and you have yet to do so.
As you said....'Well, Eusebius wrote the following which proves my case:'
Again S. as you know what you quoted was a letter to his diocese and not necessarily of Matthew. This is a big difference. And he was promoting and spreading his primitive Trinitarian wings in the process.
Read his opening statement of this letter you quoted that deliberately shows some/the context...you must see the context else one is drives blind.
"Beloved, since rumors usually travel faster than accurate information, you have probably learned from other sources what happened concerning the church’s faith at the
Great Council assembled at Nicaea. As we do not want the facts to be misrepresented by such reports, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first,
the formula of faith which we ourselves [i.e. Eusebius] presented, and next, the second, which the assembled fathers put forth with some additions to our words...." and then he says..."“We report
now to you our faith, which we have received from the bishops who preceded us..."
He completely changed his thoughts at least by this time biased toward a political-religious belief even of baptism based on a political-religious Council at Nicaea. This is no proof as you said there was proof, that he quoted any original Matthew text. In fact it leaned(s) more towards the opposite, not having Matthew in mind at all. He bought into the Trinitarian lie by this time....
You see Eusebius was already affected and left his first earlier statements about faith and baptism in Jesus only, and favored the outcome of the Nicaea Council. He was swayed and was by then a devout Trinitarian all the way. He believed in the Trinitarian formula by then....he bought into it and not based on scripture either.
He was also already rehearsing and quoting a primitive form of a Trinitarian Creed as you know. I used him because his spoke earlier in time of only baptism by/in the Son only, as in many other parts of the text of the NT. Not one place in the NT quotes a Trinitarian formula, not one. And so your proof still is very fluid and gray. It cannot be anything definitive.
And no there's no desperation at all in my words, just assertive support. And there's plenty of wishful thinking on your part I still see, as you comment on the other Great Commission versions. Perfectly aligned with Trinitarian indeed, as the blind man would say.... you must support your statement S. else I will ignore it and so should or would you.
In Luke's Great Commission version who do you think the Father truly is, and why does his Son send for him only? And why does he not name the Holy Spirit for anything? Fair short ??? right?