Julio

Prior to “ascending to heaven” Jesus instructed the disciples to go baptize with the Trinitarian Formula, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, teaching all nations the “THINGS” [??] (Matthew 28:19).
Some days [few weeks] later Peter is found contradicting it and baptizing only in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Obviously, the last three verses of Matthew are a late “interpolation”, etc.; every conscientious student knows about it.
Why is it then that fundamentalist theology protects the NT text as inerrant?

Doug Shaver

Because to fundamentalist theologians, it is not at all obvious that anything in the NT was interpolated, and they dispute your assertion that "every conscientious student" disagrees with them about that. They think it is entirely possible to be a conscientious student while adhering to inerrancy.

aa5874

And there is a strange admission by the writer Paul which appears to have been made after the later interpolation in Mathew 28.19 or after Acts 2.38.

Look at 1 Corinthians 1.17 The writer Paul appears to be aware that people were being baptized for the remission of sins, the writer Paul thinks baptism nullifies the cross of Jesus.

There was a "later" third formula. "Don't bother with baptism." Jesus must have revealed the "modified third formula" to the writer called Paul.

show_no_mercy

The writer of Acts probably didn't know about Matthew. The writer was probably writing in response to Marcion's "Luke".

Julio

DO agree! Since Acts is a document of the second century, more than 100 years after Pentecost. Or thereabouts.

andrewcriddle

What Paul means here is something like this: For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel: and my preaching did not use rhetorical skill, lest the intrinsic power of the message of the cross of Christ should be undermined by human rhetoric. ie it is "wisdom of words", or formal rhetorical skill, which potentially nullifies the cross of Christ.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

You are making stuff up.

Toto

I don't think so.

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

"not with wisdom of words" refers back to preaching. The next few verses refer to the folly of wisdom. Paul is attacking pagan wisdom, not baptism.

aa5874

The writer Paul wrote that Jesus Christ did not send him to baptise, but in Matthew 28.18-20, the character called Jesus told his disciples to preach and baptize.

It must be obvious that the writer's skill of preaching is irrelevant to his so-called non-commission from the resurrected Jesus to baptize.

And in all the letters with the name Paul, the writer only spends about five verses on baptism, and claimed he only baptized just two persons plus one household.

Now, the mere fact that the writer Paul claimed he was not commissioned to baptize by the resurrected Jesus is an indication that the writer Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1.17 after Matthew 28.19.

Julio

"Now, the mere fact that the writer Paul claimed he was not commissioned to baptize by the resurrected Jesus is an indication that the writer Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1.17 after Matthew 28.19."

True. Therefore, we can establish with that “internal evidence” that 1 Corinthians was written much later than what Scofield said in his chronology of NT scripture.
I don’t know where that famous dispensationalist got all that chronological information, really!
Paul LIED to his readers, when he contradicted the gospels left, right and centre!
Paul was a liar all his life, that’s the bottom line.
We can catch him lying all the time; not least when he prophesied the second coming of the Jesus who [he said with no witnesses!!] gave him his special revelation [Galatians 1] for his days!!
Paul was a deluded liar! Paul cannot fool me.