"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
Well, let's look at what He said to do:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
2 Corinthians 13:13,
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
1 Peter 1:2:
" .....according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood."
Oh, and you still haven't explained 1 Cor 15:24
"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."
Does Jesus deliver up the Kingdom to Himself?
You didn't address why the Apostles took Matthew 28:19 as a command to baptized in the name of Jesus. Why is there not a single example in the Bible of anyone repeating Matthew 28:19? There are many examples in the Bible of baptizing but as I listed above are all done in the name of Jesus.
You ask does Jesus deliver up the Kingdom to Himself? This follows your questions asking if Jesus prayed to Himself. Your point is that they must be different "persons" or Jesus is a ventriloquist or something nonsensical. For you they must be different eternal persons and all these verses about Jesus praying and 1 Corinthians 15:24 don't make sense any other way. I get that is what you are saying and you think this is a good argument against Oneness doctrine. But it is not and I'll explain.
First of all, Oneness doctrine affirms the Bible titles and roles of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, we do not hold that God is three eternal persons because beyond making superficial sense (as you've pointed out with Jesus praying and such) it totally breaks down logically and Biblically.
The Bible is clear that God is I AM. God is called HE and HIM. God calls Himself by singular pronouns of I, ME, MY. Scripture even makes it stronger when God says "Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not
I, the
LORD (singular Hebrew name)? And there is no other god besides
me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is
none besides me." Isaiah 45:21
You say God is not limited to one person or he, but three who's or persons and that is not Biblical and makes no sense in light of the fact that God says NONE BESIDE ME.
In answer to your question, it is vital to hold unto the strong monotheistic passages like Isaiah 45 while understanding the Father and Son relationship in light of his genuine human existence. If your honest with yourself there isn't anything in the OT that would clearly teach a Trinity, but the opposite. I can't ignore the thousands of times singular pronouns and names are used for God in the OT (Over 7,000 times).
When we come to the NT the I/You relationship between Father and Son is everywhere. Why? Because he has come in the flesh and what we read are accounts of the man Jesus Christ communicating with God.
Have you considered that Christ was not just a human shell or puppet body that was animated by God? Do you accept that he was a genuine man?
Oneness doctrine is not teaching that there is no difference between Father and Son, but that the difference is due to God's existence as an authentic man. So to all your questions the answer is simply God as a genuine man was communicating to God as men do. Though he was God, due to the limitations of his real human existence he functioned and lived as other men do other than he had no sin. It has been said often by Oneness people that everything that can be said about us, Jesus could say about himself to, except he never sinned. Did he learn? Yes. Did he grow? Yes. Did he get hungry and thirsty? Yes. Did he get tired and sleep? Yes. Did he die? Yes.
The distinction then is not between eternal God persons, but rather the difference between God existing as omnipotent Spirit and God existing as a man. Both are real and both have a clear scriptural basis.
Simultaneously then God as eternal and omnipotent Spirit continues to exist as He always has, but He also exists as a real man. The distinction then is between the invisible and visible/manifested, the transcendent and the logos, and the Spirit and the flesh. God doing many things and in many places at the same time.
That God became man was a miracle and not easy to explain, but it is not crazy or nonsensical Biblically or logically.
By asserting that God is three eternal persons the difficulty of explaining the psychology of the Son of God can be pretty much ignored, however the difficulty that is faced further up becomes insurmountable and nonsensical. God is I AM, not WE ARE.
By asserting that God is One and that the distinction between Father and Son is due to the Son's humanity the difficulty is up front and seemingly impossible until you consider that God is omnipotent and can function simultaneously in two forms of existence. That's the hard part. It's not unBiblical and it's not illogical if one accepts that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Past that there is no difficulty because we continue to maintain very easily that God is simply One in the pure sense of the word and that calling Him I AM and HE and HIM is completely in harmony with the Bible and common sense.
Both sides face a difficult explanation because we only can relate to ourselves as limited humans in one place and time. However, the three persons doctrine leads to a nonsensical conclusion and Oneness preserves the beauty of the One God in its simplicity.