1. The original article leaves out one of oldest and the most important proofs for Matthew 28:19 – the Didache 7 –
Most scholars agree that this is perhaps the oldest non-canonical writing of Christians of the late first century to early second century. Some scholars date it between 70 AD and 120 AD. This makes it the oldest, if it was written before 1 Clement in 96 AD.
7 Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then “baptize” in running water, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
see: The Didache 7
2. Just because Eusebius left out the phrase “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, does not mean he didn’t about it nor believe in it. In his other work, he affirms the eternal Word Jesus and His pre-existence. The Didache (70-120 AD) is much older than Eusebius. (300s)
” Lastly, he who is in all, before, and after all, his only begotten, pre-existent Word, the great High Priest of the mighty God, elder than all time and every age, devoted to his Father’s glory, first and alone makes intercession with him for the salvation of mankind. Supreme and pre-eminent Ruler of the universe, he shares the glory of his Father’s kingdom: for he is that Light, which, transcendent above the universe, encircles the Father’s Person, interposing and dividing between the eternal and uncreated Essence and all derived existence: that Light which, streaming from on high, proceeds from that Deity who knows not origin or end, and illumines the super-celestial regions, and all that heaven itself contains, with the radiance of wisdom bright beyond the splendor of the sun. This is he who holds a supreme dominion over this whole world, who is over and in all things, and pervades all things visible and invisible; the Word of God. From whom and by whom our divinely favored emperor, receiving, as it were a transcript of the Divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world’s affairs.” (The Oration of Eusebius in Praise of Emperor Constantine, 1:6)
3. There are no Greek manuscript textual variants on Matthew 28:19 that call into doubt on the phrase “in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit”. All the Greek manuscripts testify of this, so the whole argument that this was a later interpolation is just false.
4. “Follower of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)” wrote in the comment box:
Dear Christian apologists trying to attack Islam, I ask you to be fair and not treat hadith as if they are revelations from God….the Qur’an identifies only itself as the direct revelation from God and the Qur’an indicates in 2(282) that all claims such as almost all the entire hadith corpus fails the requirements to be certain like the Qur’an.
“attack Islam” – I get that you “feel” that attack; but these are valid criticisms, just as Paul Williams, Shabir Ally, and other Muslims here criticize the Bible and Christianity, using liberal scholarship, etc. The biggest advantage in the freedom of the west is the freedom to peacefully criticize, which most areas in the Muslim world does not allow. Islam as a whole needs to grow up and be able to accept valid criticism without sinful anger and violence and rioting, etc.
The problem is that no one can understand the Qur’an without the Hadith and other Sunna embedded in Sira and Tarikh and Tafsirs, etc. because, most of the time, the Qur’an does not give the historical context (the Asbaab ol Nozul
اسباب النزول = literally, “the reasons or occasion for the coming down/revelation”.)
The “Flying Pir” also gave a very detailed explanation of Surah 9:29 (in another article), with all sorts of references to other historical background, the Asbaab ol Nuzul, etc. – the battle of Tabuk (630 AD), the battle of Mu’tah (629 AD), etc. but totally avoided the Qur’anic context of the verse – not one comment on Surah 9:28 (if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you” – seems to indicate the later conditions of no longer getting revenue from the Kaaba pilgrimages from the pagans because they were all expelled from Hijaz/Arabia, and along with the Hadith that says “no 2 religions will be allowed in the Hijaz / Arabia” – and see Ibn Kathir’s commentary in this article, shows that the motivation for attacking the Byzantine Empire was to get the Jiziye money from the people of the book outside of Arabia proper and conquer them. nor any comment on 9:30 – nor what the Qur’an actually says in verse 29 is the reason for fighting the people of the book – “who believe not in Allah nor forbid what Allah forbids”. Verse 29 does not say, “fight the people of the book only in the area of Tabuk and no more”; nor does it say, “only fight them because they are oppressing the Monophysites in Egypt and Levant”, etc. It says fight them because of their beliefs and practices, not because they were thought to be getting ready to attack (before the Tabuk expedition), etc. Also, the battle of Mu’tah had already happened the year before (629 AD), but the Tabuk expedition was in 630 AD. Why didn’t the Qur’an mention that as the reason? The omission is quite glaring and the content of verses 28, 29, and 30 contradict the whole article that relies on extra Qur’anic material. In that article, he put Hadith first and gave no comment on the Qur’anic context and verses around it.
Sometimes you guys put Hadith first as more important, and sometimes the Qur’an, it seems, in seeking to justify difficult passages.