The Gospel commission is the last recorded words of Jesus, the Son of Man in both Matthew and Mark:

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

Mark's version of this same command is:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

"Matthew 28:19 is quoted by Christians as evidence for the Trinity. However it is an interpolation into the Text. Respected Bible scholars say that the formula was an insertion, and that it originally was “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.” Matthew 28:19 is the only baptism verse in the entire New Testament with the “Trinity” formula.” All other verses point to baptism being performed in the Name of Jesus alone. Take for example Apostle Peter in Acts. He always baptized ONLY in the name of Jesus. See the following verses:"

Acts 2:38 – Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16 – For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 – So Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay there for several days.

If Matthew 28:19 is true and Jesus did command his disciples to baptize ”in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Why would Peter disobey Jesus' command and Baptize only in His name? The answer lies in the Text. The formula of the “Father Son and Holy Spirit” is not part of the original text of Matthew. How do we know it is not part of Text? Let's turn to respected Scholars.

"Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.” For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:"

"But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

"Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:"

'What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”'

"Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread."

1. George H. Gilbert Quotes Mr Conybeare and says the following on Matthew 28:19:

“There is important external evidence against the existence of this formula in manuscripts current before the time of Eusebius, and various recent writers have urge that the practice of baptism in Acts and Epistles of Paul is utterly incompatible with the view that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (E.g., Martineau, The Seat of Authority in religion, page 515; Percy Gardener, Exploratio Evangilica, page 445; Sabatier, Religions of Authority and Religion of Spirit, page 52; Harnack, History of Dogma Volume 1, 79, note).”

George H. Gilbert then says:

“It is obvious that the location of this word between ‘Father’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ is virtually a claim that the Son stands on the same level with them. The position takes him up, as it were, into the very center of the Deity. But to this claim the words of Jesus in our oldest sources stand opposed. Unique and divine as is their claim regarding the character of the Master a claim like that of the Baptismal formula, but in the clearest, most unambiguous terms assert what is diametrically opposed to the implication of that passage. They assert manhood; they deny attributes of deity (e.g., omniscience and absolute goodness). Therefore it is impossible to hold that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels can have spoken the words of the Baptismal formula” [1]

2. James Moffatt’s NT Translation in his footnote (page 64) says the following words:

“….it may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5….”

3. Bultmann says:

“As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, (the apocryphal Catholic Didache) suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded (changed) to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[2]

4. Principal A. J. Grieve says:

“The command to baptize into the threefold name is late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words ‘baptizing… spirit’ we should probably read simply ‘into my name’, i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, or ‘in my name’” [3]

5. Former Priest Tom Harpur:

“All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] 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 (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) 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 [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] 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 (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion….“[4]

"If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did."

I am indebted to the following sites for portions of this page:

discover-the-truth.com

discover-the-truth.com

biblicalunitarian.com

trinitytruth.org