Matt 28:19

[tealblue]

I was wondering what most peoples thought about the phrase baptize in the name of the Father, son and holy spirit as it pertains to if this was added to scripture after the fact due to doctrinal reason. The earliest manuscript comes from the 4th century so we don’t know what this text looked like as it was first written. As a Catholic it wouldn’t bother me because I believe in the tradition handed down from the church. But as a protestant If it was ever proven that baptize in Jesus name was the original text then how would they justify using the trinitarian formula that was basicaly Catholic Tradition.

 

[kepha1]

We imagine Matthew the Apostle sitting near Jesus writing His words in short hand, or frantically trying to keep up, lest he miss a phrase. From my browsing, Matthew was first written 80-100 A.D. and how much Apostolic Tradition became part of Matthew (or any of the Gospels) cannot be certain. I don’t know when the first extant copy was quoted by the Fathers, so there is a difference between the first written copy, and an extant manuscript.

There are legions of cults claiming that Matthew 28:19 was added by Constantine. Making painstakingly accurate extant copies was the job of humble monks, not an emporer.

This theory also falls flat when you look at the Didache, which was written around the same time. The Didache was AUTHORITIVE, and almost made it into the Bible.

DIDACHE, CHAPTER 7 - CONCERNING BAPTISM

1. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: After reviewing all of this teaching, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in living (running) water.
2. But if living water is not available, then baptize into other water; and cold is prefered, but if not available in warm.
3. But if neither is available, pour water three times upon the head in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

MATTHEW 28:19
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

Even if the cults are correct, and Matthew 28:19 was added later, the teaching and practice of the earliest Christians certainly wasn’t added, and I am sure there is more evidence countering anti-Catholic lies than what I have offered.

Gospel of St. Matthew (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Didache

 

[tealblue]

I don’t doubt for a minute that the trinitarian baptism was used from the beginning. I don’t think scripture was really intended to be a guide on how to baptize. I’m leading towards the beliefe that matt 28 was altered just as 1 john 5:7 was altered. Not because of conspiracy but because it seems that way. Most quotes on matt 28 from early writings don’t include the trinitarian formula.

I think what I’m getting at is I wonder how protestants would feel if it was ever proven that baptizing in the name of the father son and holy spirit wasn’t part of the original manuscript they would have to come to the conclusion that they have been following Catholic Authority all along. Because by a bible alone standard how would they justify baptizing in the formula they use.