Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation 2

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You do understand that there are many scholars who believe that Revelation and 2 Thessalonians don't belong in the New Testament. But, what they can't refute is the physical evidence.

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?

I have not yet begun to post material on the Shem Tob and other Hebrew material. I am leaving that for later.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Willis is guilty of bad research. He didnt originate these quotes

I communicated with Dr. Willis and he was a noble gentleman, full of the holy spirit of God. He would never intentionally originate false quotes.

Maybe he was simply guilty of bad research, but never of bad intentions.
I respect the man a lot and I view any attacks on him as "Willis’ deception" as character assassination of a godly man.

I would expect respect for such an honorable man of God who has given his life for the gospel, but perhaps that is asking too much of some people

But of course if evil people dare to speak evil of Jesus then what can we expect they will say of us.
CEV "If people call the head of the family Satan, what will they say about the rest of the family?"

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Maybe he was simply guilty of bad research, but never of bad intentions. I respect the man a lot and I view any attacks on him as "Willis’ deception" as character assassination of a godly man.

Here is what Tim Hegg wrote in 2006:

Matthew 28:19 - A Text-Critical Investigation (2006)
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
Tim Hegg
https://torahresource.com/pdf-articl...igation.pdfbad

Willis’ deception in misquoting sources in order to make them say precisely the opposite of what the authors intended is nothing short of reprehensible.5 but unfortunately it represents the misinformation all too often encountered on the internet.10

10. One need only search the internet for “Matthew 28:19" to see the manner in which irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception has been multiplied upon unsuspecting readers. Such a state of affairs should strengthen our resolve to accept conclusions only when we have verified the sources.

Tim Hegg gives examples.

e.g. You can go to the quote on the Clinton Willis site from the ISBE, claiming the words are "foreign to the mouth of Jesus".

A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19.
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Yet, the ISBE was actually opposing the Harnack position, which is in his History of Dogma, with the phrase from the ISBE: "rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue".

Clinton Willis never corrected the quote, the problem is the same today as in 2006. If a godly man puts up a deceptive quote, he is taking ownership of the deception. The problem is magnified if he refuses to make proper corrections.

In this matter, FZ is actually the one guilty of a false accusation of "character assassination", since Tim Hegg did a superb job in carefully highlighting scholarship difficulties and deceptions.

And, not surprisingly, once a deceptive and doctored quote hits the internet, it is quotes by others. This very same problem showed up here in 2014, with jfrog giving an excellent correction.

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'll be a good sport and show the deceitfulness in one more piece of that preponderance of evidence you have:... The outright deceitfulness about what the actual encyclopedia was saying is astonishing! ***BTW the source in question is taken from wordsponges other thread about matthew 28:19 ...

.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Willis is guilty of bad research. He didn't originate these quotes

Probably true in some or all cases. Although in some cases he may have made effort to get the "quote" right, yet even then problems came with things like quote-snipping, (commentary interpolations), context, etc. And by the veneer of scholarship, he influenced 100 and more other sites, books, etc.

btw, his "Dr." is from a G. Reckart (Cohen Gary Reckart) light-weight mail-order institution in Tampa, where you can get a "Life Experience Doctorate Degree". And in such cases I would never use the word "Dr.". This is a big problem in Christian circles, many of the King James Bible Baptist supporters love to find a way to stick "Dr." in front of their names. James White did this as well. Michael Brown, for all his doctrinal issues, at least has a very real doctorate from NYU, and if you want to call him Dr., that is fine.

And there is a huge problem with quoting secondary and tertiary sources without attribution.

And if that was done in ignorance, not realizing the problem, the writer should be diligently attempting to check the primary source. And making all the proper tweaks and corrections. And in these cases, the primary source is often easily available. Clearly, many quotes on Matthew 28:19 will have no salvage value to the contra position, and will simply be deleted (although a correction for earlier use should be given.)

If a quote ends up dangling, anonymous, then it should not be mixed in with real quotes from respected historians or historical works. From a scholarship perspective, that is very off-putting, and somewhere along the transmission line, deception was likely the goal.

[Steven Avery]

Here is a new addition to our list of Ante-Nicene usage supports of the traditional text.

Pure Bible Forum
Matthew 28:19 -Ante-Nicene referencing (before Eusebius)
- the Ehrman textual criticism discussion
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ism-discussion

The Council of Arles, 314 A.D.
http://www.ldysinger.com/@magist/031.../00a_start.htm

The Following is adapted from:
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. Cross, Livingstone; (OUP, 1983).

CANON 9
9 (8). Concerning the Africans who use their own special law in that they practice rebaptism, it is resolved that if any come to the church from heresy, they question him on the creed (used at his baptism), and if they consider him to have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, let him only receive the laying on of hands so that he receive the Holy Spirit; but if when questioned he does not solemnly confess this Trinity, let him be baptized.

De afris quod propria lege sua utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuit ut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de haeresi uenerit, interrogent eum symbolum, et si peruiderint eum in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur ut accipiat spiritum (sanctum); quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc trinitatem, baptizetur.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I have not yet begun to post material on the Shem Tob and other Hebrew material. I am leaving that for later.

How about you keep it to one thread instead of spamming the forum with the same material whenever things take a turn you don't like?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

How about you keep it to one thread instead of spamming the forum with the same material whenever things take a turn you don't like?

FZ, Votive makes a great point. You actually have three threads on this one subject. Yet, you aren't any closer to convincing anyone. So, what is the purpose?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

How about you keep it to one thread instead of spamming the forum with the same material whenever things take a turn you don't like?

You are right, I should have stayed with one thread, but I felt the thread had been poisoned by so many negative comments, that I decided to start a fresh thread without all the negative baggage.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, Votive makes a great point. You actually have three threads on this one subject. Yet, you aren't any closer to convincing anyone. So, what is the purpose?

My purpose is to state this view in the best manner that I can possible do it.
Whether I can convince anyone, well maybe not yet. I have only begun to post my evidence, little by little, because a new idea takes some time to get used to.

Noah did not convinced many people, and neither did Lot, but at least Lot made an attempt to convince his sons in law, he did not succeeded but he still tried.

I am just planting the seed for further reflection by some people. who knows someone might eventually understand what I am trying to teach. it takes time

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You are right, I should have stayed with one thread, but I felt the thread had been poisoned by so many negative comments, that I decided to start a fresh thread without all the negative baggage.

Pick one of your three, and I will lock the other two. And no more new threads.