Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1855 professor of theology Baron Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his History of the Christian Church writes that up till 100 AD “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus”. He states that from 100-312 AD the Roman Church, recognized the validity of all baptisms. And mentioned that the Marcionists (who baptized in the name of Jesus) existed until the 6th century.

Great, Jesus name baptism was used way before Azusa Street. Hooray! Tell us something we didn’t know. Anyhoo, FZ is no longer trying to prove the validity of his previous claim. That the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 is spurious.

[Apostolic1ness]

I think Matthew 28:19 is a great scripture with the understanding it was written after the events of Acts 2 had taken place. With that in mind I think it is very clear the understanding of the Apostles was the name of Jesus.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

I think Matthew 28:19 is a great scripture with the understanding it was written after the events of Acts 2 had taken place. With that in mind I think it is very clear the understanding of the Apostles was the name of Jesus.

Exactly, I received revelation on One God and Jesus name baptism because of Matthew 28:18-19. Name is singular and therefore the titles must be encompassed by that name.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Exactly, I received revelation on One God and Jesus name baptism because of Matthew 28:18-19. Name is singular and therefore the titles must be encompassed by that name.

The German scholar Teller in Exc.2 of his edition of Burnet’s book: De Fide et officiis christianorum, Halae, 1786, p. 262, disputed the genuineness of the text.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

If they could refer to one variant reading from a Hebrew Matthew, they could refer or quote others.

If they could not read Hebrew at all, how would they know of the variant reading ?? How could they accurately quote from a manuscript they could not even read ??

Finding other variant readings from the same pericope would tell us more about the content of the Hebrew Matthew and how other phrases and words were translated.

Eusebius was one of the few who could actually read Hebrew, so yes he could read the original Hebrew text.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

"In my name" is not a baptismal phrase used in any of the great commission accounts.

Mark 16:16-17
He that believeth and is baptized...In my name


"In the name" is used by Matthew.

it was used 17 times in the Gospels

"In my name" they shall cast out demons. (Mark 16)

Everything done in Mark 1616-17 is to be done in his name, we are to do all things in his name. Jesus did not have to say.
Go ye into all the world, in my name
preach the gospel to every creature, in my name
He that believeth, in my name
is baptized, in my name
shall be saved, in my name
he that believeth not, in my name
shall be damned, in my name
and so forth

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke.
Yes Luke did mention baptism in Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:47, Acts 19:5

So when the quote "in my name" is mentioned, what passage is being referred to ??

Unless Matthew is mentioned by name, how do we know "in my name" is a specific quote from Matthew ???

Context

See ye later.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Flat earth, anyone?

sarcasm anyone?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yes, and it looks as FZ totally understands the weakness of his claims. But he has supplied some good resources of those who believed Biblical baptism was to be performed in Jesus name. That I applaud. Yet, there is no sound proof for the traditional rendering of Matthew 28:19 to be a scribal error or insertion. Also no solid proof for a Hebrew/Aramaic original New Testament.

The claims of Steven Avery are clearly irrelevant, since he is not longer part of our discussion. but that does not mean we shouldn't learn more about baptism in the name of Jesus and interpretation history.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, stopped defending his original point that the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Now he just wants to post that we need to baptize in Jesus name. Wonderful. Dearest readers, what you are witnessing here is FZ, ran out of a strong argument.

are you counting your chickens before they hatch?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The German scholar Teller in Exc.2 of his edition of Burnet’s book: De Fide et officiis christianorum, Halae, 1786, p. 262, disputed the genuineness of the text.

This is:

William Abraham Teller (1734-1804) ( Guillaume-Abraham )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Abraham_Teller

A rationalist, hard to tell what he really wrote, the 1786 edition is listed in Harvard and Chicago by Worldcat in the USA.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The claims of Steven Avery are clearly irrelevant, since he is not longer part of our discussion.

Try not to be too delusional.

We realize you have great difficulty having any dialog about the issues, and basically you have shipwrecked any belief that we actually have the pure Bible to read. All for a mess of porridge. Nonetheless, your stumblings can be turned into our historical insight.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Eusebius was one of the few who could actually read Hebrew, so yes he could read the original Hebrew text.

Eusebius worked with the Hexapla, the strength of his abilities in Hebrew is very unclear, and is discussed by Carl Umhau Wolf in his introduction to:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Onomasticon (1971) Introduction. pp. i-xl.
Carl Umhau Wolf
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...n_01_intro.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/more...%20Onomasticon

If Eusebius knew Hebrew he did not utilize the Masoretic text, and unlike Jerome, was dependent upon the Hexapla. Some think there is use of simple Hebrew by Eusebius in the Demonstratio Evangelica but this Hebrew could also be derived from Philo and Origen. The few references in the Greek version of the Onomasticon to "in Hebrew" could all be references to Col. 1 or 2 of the Hexapla and require no great knowledge of either Hebrew language or texts. As noted above they could be glosses or a later editorial addition. The occasional etymological notations and the frequent quotations of the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion could also be accounted for in the same ways. Some of the etymologies found in the Masoretic text in Hebrew are not utilized by the Onomasticon.

There are some indications of Hebrew competence, notice some of the referencing here.

8. Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms and Its Place in the Origins of Christian Biblical Scholarship
Michael J. Hollerich
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/...el-j-hollerich

And one site indicated he indicated a Jewish teacher of Hebrew (which still could be rudimentary.)

If there is a good study on this question, the competence of Hebrew by Eusebius, it would be good to read. And I have an inquiry or two out to the Eusebius scholars.