Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Just a note that the evidences for the heavenly witnesses is not the Greek Majority - Minority issue. This issue is a main part of the discussion on the Mark ending, Pericope Adulterae, 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18 and 1,000 other verses where the corruption modern versions are far inferior to the Authorized Version, often with piddle omission corruptions.

On the heavenly witnesses, the evidence is much more from the Latin side, and came over from the Greek in the first centuries. This is much more like Acts 8:37, which has light Greek ms. support

The heavenly witnesses has incredible early church writings support, Ante-Nicene like Tertullian followed by Cyprian, also Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue and a Carthage of Council in the 400s where hundreds affirmed the verse in their Bible contra the Arians under Huneric.

The solecism in the short Greek text, the Johannine beautiful consistency and style, all the Latin evidences, and more .. lots of this should be on the thread above. Many learned scholars see this verse as actually having been difficult for the Trinitarian side in the Sabellian controversies.

Steven

Exactly. The heavenly witnesses verse, along with the earthly witnesses verse, provide a neat, concise summation of BOTH the godhead AND the new birth.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Exactly. The heavenly witnesses verse, along with the earthly witnesses verse, provide a neat, concise summation of BOTH the godhead AND the new birth.

Amen.

Here is a work in progress (WIP) on these Sabellian questions.
Note that the Eusebius reference is a recent discovery for my studies (it may be in Charles Forster or Kittel, or it may be a discovery of the author of the paper), and quite incredible, and needs more study.

Pure Bible Forum
scholars theorizing that the Sabellian controversies contributed to the Greek ms line drop
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=2229#post2229

[FlamingZword]

In 1728 Thomas Burnet in his book 'de fide et officiis Cristianorum.' criticized Matthew 28:19 and mentioned that variations had existed in the baptismal formula.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Exactly. The heavenly witnesses verse, along with the earthly witnesses verse, provide a neat, concise summation of BOTH the godhead AND the new birth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1728 Thomas Burnet in his book 'de fide et officiis Cristianorum.' criticized Matthew 28:19 and mentioned that variations had existed in the baptismal formula.

Well, well, Thomas "localized flood" Burnet, he also believed that the book of Genesis' story of the creation was symbolic, and that Adam and Eve story was also symbolic. But I wouldn't discount any hard evidence which Thomas Burnet would've presented. Yet, alas he hadn't any. What we do have are manuscripts all written in Greek, which the originals were penned in Greek. FZ, please produce some solid evidence to strengthen your argument. So, far you have only proven that you believe that the Bible in its current form can not uphold Apostolic Truth. Somewhere a Trinitarian theologian is laughing at you.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Well, well, Thomas "localized flood" Burnet, he also believed that the book of Genesis' story of the creation was symbolic, and that Adam and Eve story was also symbolic. But I wouldn't discount any hard evidence which Thomas Burnet would've presented. Yet, alas he hadn't any. What we do have are manuscripts all written in Greek, which the originals were penned in Greek. FZ, please produce some solid evidence to strengthen your argument. So, far you have only proven that you believe that the Bible in its current form can not uphold Apostolic Truth. Somewhere a Trinitarian theologian is laughing at you.

Amen. Thanks.
However,

Thomas Burnet (1635-1715)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Burnet

did seem to support a global flood, in the midst of some unusual cosmogony.

Here is an example third-party summary quote:

William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (2002)
By James E. Force
https://books.google.com/books?id=dc6Zk-HvIwwC&pg=PA173

"... Sacred Theory of the Earth, pp. 381-412, Burnet repeats his argument for the radical differences between the antediluvian and postdiluvian earth. He concludes that only his theory agrees with Moses’ history of both the extent of the Flood (Moses and Burnet claim that it covered the entire earth) and the mechanical causes (a rupture of the crust of the Cartesian third element, and a heavy rainfall). He criticizes in particular those theorists, such as Isaac La Peyrere, who in his notorious Men Before Adam (London, 1656), Book 4, claims that the Flood was a local event confined to Noah’s immediate environment."

===================

On Matthew 28:19 Thomas Burnet does not seem to really have said too much.
We can try to parse out the Latin here:

De fide et officiis Christianorum (1727, originally 1720)
Thomas Burnet
https://books.google.com/books?id=YvC6JXO-CV0C&pg=PA207

It seems that his English translated books do not support special referencing on Matthew 28:19.

The Resurrection and Modern Thought (1915)
By William John Sparrow-Simpson
https://books.google.com/books?id=ue...A268&lpg=PA268

A criticism upon the Formula was made by Thomas Burnet1 in a work published in 1727. Burnet did not discuss the question, but observed that variations had existed in the Baptismal phrases.

Yes, there are variations in the baptism phrase.
Note the comment about Riggenbach noting Burnet differently.
Also a fine comment on p. 271, using Chase, about the times where Eusebius utilized the full verse wording.

===================

Apparently Burnet awkwardly, with difficulty, tried to take a middle ground in the Trinity battles of Samuel Clarke with Daniel Waterland in a book titled:

The Scripture-Trinity Intelligibly Explained: Or, an Essay Toward the Demonstration of a Trinity in Unity, from Reason and Scripture. In a Chain of Consequences from Certain Principles.
Thomas Burnet
https://books.google.com/books?id=DmNjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR1

===================

Most of the above was new to me tonight.
Thanks for the referencing.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Burnet is a localized flood believer. Also denounced the deity of Christ. He firmly believed Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. Anything he had written concerning Matthew 28:19 would of been his theological thoughts concerning the verse ( that’s just my personal opinion) not his doubts on the verse being an actual quote from Jesus. Yet, our dear brother FZ failed to supply us with the notation from Burnet. Really we aren’t supplied with much in anyway to really examine these statements from dead theologians. Which FZ is so proudly posting to us their vague witness. Just goes to show you how opinion, and agenda goes into translation. Translation is more personal interpretation that literal translating. Take for instance the Bible which FZ translated. With what we know concerning his personal belief concerning Matthew 28:19 do you think he translated it properly? What manuscripts did he use? What is his expertise in Hebrew, and Aramaic? These are important questions.

[Steven Avery]

DNB
https://books.google.com/books?id=gGpIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA408

Time for a correction.

The Scripture-Trinity Thomas Burnet (d. 1750) DNB p. 410
his books are listed c. 1730 at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SnRbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA32
https://books.google.com/books?id=SNJbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2

is different than:

The cosmogony Thomas Burnet.(1635?-1715) DNB p. 408-410
with the note on Matthew 28:19 in De fide et officiis Christianorum
Publications were published posthumously, I think two Latin pubs, including De fide and De Statu, and there is a mention of an English translation of those two works by Dennis in DNB.

The Scripture-Trinity gentleman is not referenced in Wikipedia (and should be, that work was right in the middle of major Christology controversies.)

A third Thomas Burnet (1694-1753) - DNB p. 410-411
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Burne...4-1753)_(DNB00)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gGpIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA410
Wrote a book called:
The True Church of Christ, 1753
however, mostly he was in humor or poetry or some other types of writings.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Burnet is a localized flood believer. Also denounced the deity of Christ. He firmly believed Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. Anything he had written concerning Matthew 28:19 would of been his theological thoughts concerning the verse ( that’s just my personal opinion) not his doubts on the verse being an actual quote from Jesus. Yet, our dear brother FZ failed to supply us with the notation from Burnet. Really we aren’t supplied with much in anyway to really examine these statements from dead theologians. Which FZ is so proudly posting to us their vague witness. Just goes to show you how opinion, and agenda goes into translation. Translation is more personal interpretation that literal translating. Take for instance the Bible which FZ translated. With what we know concerning his personal belief concerning Matthew 28:19 do you think he translated it properly? What manuscripts did he use? What is his expertise in Hebrew, and Aramaic? These are important questions.

Allowing the open question about the flood (quotes or references needed) this looks spot-on, including the ultra-low ebionite Christology of Burnet, and the spotty referencing from FZ.

Oh, the warning about translation is true, which is one reason why the AV is so superb, the 50 learned men translated to accuracy, not to doctrine.

Did FZ translate a Bible?
Or did he simply reference some other work, again spottily.

However, from my studies on the heavenly witnesses, i really enjoy filling in gaps like this one on the Thomas Burnets, including how it takes us over to the historical geology and creationary issues! Fascinating.

Also an early ebionite writer, way before the well-known Joseph Priestley. Budny, discussed above, also had ebionite sympathies, and Frick talks about how he toned them down from one edition to another.

=======================================

Here is another short quote about the Thomas Burnet cosmogony, on drifting and dividing continent theories..

For the Son of Man has Come to Save that which is Lost (2008)
Alexander Douglas
http://www.freethechurch.org/Library...h-Was-Lost.pdf

The first suggestion of continental division came from a biblical scholar, the English cleric, Thomas Burnet in 1681 when he published his book, The Sacred Theory of the Earth, which postulated that the opening of the deep caused the continents to be pushed apart3.

3 Miller, Russell & the editors of Time-Life Books. Continents in Collision, Time-Life Books. 1983, pp. 13 & 14.

[Steven Avery]

While I was researching the heavenly witnesses and Eusebius, i did bump into one of his Matthew 28:19 full usages, with full context. This was recently translated to English and published. And I have not yet checked if it is in the list of his three full Matthew 28:19 usages referenced briefly above, in the reference to Frederic Cornwallis Chase. (Pretty sure it is.) Nor have I checked the date of the writing.

What is superb is that you can see the somewhat convoluted doctrinal dancing of Eusebius (who is sometimes called semi-Arian, but this is difficult, since early church writers are variously being accused of being Sabellian or Arian.)

Pure Bible Forum
Eusebius and the Sabellian controversies
Jeroen Beekhuizen - The Comma Johanneum revisited
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=1699#post1699

An extract from Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical Theology” III, 4-6
Roger Pearse - August 30, 2013
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/...ology-iii-4-6/

Wherefore only this spirit has been included in the holy and thrice-blessed Triad. This is not different from the Savior’s explaining to his apostles his sacrament of rebirth for all those from the nations who believe in him. He commanded them to baptize “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Of the Father because he has full authority and gives the grace. Of the Son because he ministers to this grace (for “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”). Of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, who is himself provided according to the diversity of graces in himself: ‘For to one is given a word of wisdom through the Spirit, but to another a word of knowledge according to the same spirit. To another is given faith by the same Spirit” and likewise the things considered with these. ...

More context on the Roger Pearse site. Then more still in the book.