Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation 2
This is a new thread that I am starting to inform those who want to have honest respectable debate about the issue of Matthew 28:19 being an interpolation.
In this thread I will not tolerate any demeaning or vicious attack upon my person. if anyone engages in such behavior I will not respond to such posts. I am here to debate this issue and I will not tolerate any bashing of me. Here are the rules, 1. No personal attacks upon my person or my motives. 2. There will no baseless accusations, so ask about something and do not assume things. 3. I do not mind honest questions and clear objections. 4. I don't have all the answers to everything, so sometimes my answer will be "I don't know" 5. I have a vast collection of information from over 15 years, I begun studying this issue sometime before 1999. 6. I will post information from what I have collected on my own or was sent to me. 7. Because I do not want to cite very long citations, I will sometimes shorten such citations for brevity sake. 8. I am human and therefore I might be mistaken in some things, so if I am mistaken about something I will correct it. 9. I open this new thread and will start from where I left of in my past postings. so if you want to catch up. you may go to my old threads. |
Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
Continuing with more information
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) p. 392, reads; in vol. 4, p. 2637 under “Baptism,” says, “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus.” A History of the Christian Church (1918) p. 58 by Professor of Ecclesiastical History Williston Walker, at Yale University writes: “This appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula which was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”, “There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Mat. 28:19. That text is early [but not original], however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed and the practice recorded [or interpolated] in the Teaching [Didache] and by Justin”. (p. 95). We can also read that this baptismal formula was the prototype of the Apostles creed which was created in opposition to the heretics of that time which baptized in the name of Jesus. What many people are not aware of is that the Marcionites and other early groups which the Catholic Church denounced as heretical baptized their believers in the name of Jesus. “While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 the earliest known form of the so called Apostles' Creed. What antecedents in Asia Minor, if any, it may have had is still a question in scholarly dispute. Without symbolic authority in the Orient, all the Western churches received this creed from Rome.” (p. 61). An anonymous commentator (perhaps Ploughman) says the following; “Professor and Church historian Walker reviles the true origin and purpose of Mat 28:19, the spurious Catholic text of Mat 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Mat 28:19, it is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! Therefore, Mat 28:19 is not the ‘Great Commission of Jesus Christ.’ Mat 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Cor 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Mat 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetonianus and Bobiensis?” |
ISBE - shoddy scholarship exposed by Tim Hegg
Quote:
edited by James Orr https://books.google.com/books?id=Tn...YAAJ&pg=PA2637 This quote-snippet is taken from an article by John Chisholm Lambert (1857-1917), and is in about 200 parrot sites of the Matthew 28:19 contras. And it was shown to be unscholarly long ago, back in 2006 in the paper by Tim Hegg. Quote:
So we see how hopeless is the shoddy scholarship that comes from the contra Matthew 28:19 partisans. Corrections are simply ignored. Scholarly accuracy is not their concern. Quote:
|
anonymous commentator mangling Williston Walker
Quote:
The anonymous commentary is worthless. And there is nothing surprising that the end of a book (not just Matthew 28:19) is lacuna in ancient mss. And the "Yeshua/Jesus" comment makes it look like it was made (or changed) in recent years, which should leave out Ploughman. Randall Duane Hughes has some 1962 material from Ploughman: http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm What about Professor Walker? Williston Walker (1860-1922) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Walker Quote:
And if you think it might be another Walker, see this contra page which purports to gives quote from the 1953 edition of his book: http://www.biblicaltruths.com/has-th...tain-doctrine/ Perhaps this writer is confusing somebodies commentary with the actual book of Walker. ====================== Quote:
Next step will be to try to get a copy of the 1953 edition, or perhaps 1847. (There are a number of later editions.) Abebooks shows a 1950 edition, that might be a good try. https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Boo...-srp5-_-title5 When it comes to the quote-snippet secondary and tertiary and quaternary quoting and misquoting: None dare call this scholarship! |
Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
Let us assume for a moment it is spurious. What other verse in Matt's gospel would one use to promote the deity of Christ other than Matt 1:23? It would seem his deity would be REVEALED by the majority version as it has been to many over the years.
|
islamists use fake news scholarship arguments
Quote:
Quote:
This goes way back, at least to the writing of Clinton Willis, which has had this section online since at least 2005 (2009 in archive.org, however a forum gives this reference from his website in 2005.) Quote:
Quote:
And for this purpose they will quote the shoddy scholarship references. The oneness writers are very wrong, the islamists are very wrong. The truth is our pure Reformation Bible, and in the majestic Authorized Version. Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. |
Clinton Willis on Williston Walker
Here is a quick summary of the tricks of the Clinton Willis page, the section on Williston Walker. He has three paragraphs.
============= In the first one he adds his comments right in the quote, drastically changing the meaning: (but not the original) (*or interpolated) Williston Walker does not say anything even remotely like those two phrases. Not even a hint. It is simply fantasy writing by Clinton Willis. (He also has the quotes marks messed up, ending with 3.) ============= The second paragraph has nothing at all to do with what was written by Williston Walker. It is just polemic, worthless, that should not be in that section. It starts: "On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19." Maybe "reviles" is a 15-year misprint for "reveals". The rest is worthless polemic, and it could be from Clinton Willis, or he could be quoting an unknown source. ============= The third paragraph has two more comments by Willis put inside the quote: (Catholic) (man-made non-inspired spurious) This is a distraction, especially since the main context is the Apostle's Creed, which is usually sensible for apostolics. Here is how it is given in one spot. Quote:
|
FZ further mangles the deceptive secondary source
Clinton Willis has mangled the basics. Although two quotes were accurate, if you remove his (comments that look like part of the quote). However he sticks anonymous commentary between the two quotes, to pretend that they have some relationship to the Williston Walker material.
FZ then uses the mangled material and makes it into complete scholarly gibberish. As if we care about an anonymous source who writes total nonsense. Yet still keeping Williston Walker involved, as part of the charade. Why does FZ not at least look for the primary source? In this case the Williston Walker book, right online, full text. |
Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
Quote:
I asked you to produce the answers for the inability of translating key scriptures from Matthew from Greek into Hebrew/Aramaic. Was I mocking you? I thought I was being pretty gentle with my post. Yet, you continued to ignore. If Matthew was originally a Hebrew Only manuscript translated into Greek. I can't see it. Please show me and also with what you don't know, can that be a factor in your decision making? |
Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
Willis is guilty of bad research. He didnt originate these quotes
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.