Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old Yesterday, 10:12 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 30,908
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
The Journal of Theological Studies (1901-1902) Vol 3 p. 181 “The great Baptismal formula of Mt. xxviii 19 again is cited as 'supremely authoritative,' without the slightest reference to the fact that the language of St. Paul about Baptism, 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' and the well-attested employment of such a formula in the early Church, have suggested grave doubts as to whether we have before us in this passage words which really came from the lips of Christ.”
Suggest: definition, to mention or imply as a possibility.

A could be, a may be.

Thomas Jefferson cut up the New Testament because he had "feelings" that certain items needed to be removed. He had suggestions also, which led to verses laying on the floor. FZ do you use a NIV? If not, why not?
__________________
ALL pastors are hindrances and one should never have a pastor they will only abuse you and you will get hurt. Instead get your instructions from forum gurus that have never built a church.~Steve Epley.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old Yesterday, 11:10 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
Robert Campbell Morgan and Rashdall Hastings

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
The Journal of Theological Studies (1901-1902) Vol 3 p. 181 “The great Baptismal formula of Mt. xxviii 19 again is cited as 'supremely authoritative,'
Robert Campbell Morgan (1845-1903)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moberly_(priest)

wrote a classic book on the doctrine of the Atonement.

Quote:
Atonement and Personality (originally 1901)
Robert Campbell Morgan
https://archive.org/details/atonemen...beuoft/page/n8
https://books.google.com/books?id=D4FCAAAAIAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=D4FCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA213

As to the question of fact, it is very difficult to be certain how far the word “Son ” is used directly in Scripture of the pre-Incamate Logos as such. I have already suggested in the text what seem to me reasonable grounds for doubting whether, in the great Baptismal formula, which is supremely authoritative, “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," the reference is so much io the preexistent Logos, as to the Incarnate who had triumphed once for all in man.
This was reviewed by:

Rashdall Hastings (1858-1924)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Rashdall

who was more of a utilitarianism philosopher than a Christian believer.
The review is in:

The Journal of Theological Studies
(1902)
Dr. Moberly's Doctrine of the Atonement
https://books.google.com/books?id=szw2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA181

Rashdall Hastings was concerned that verses like:

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.


were accepted uncritically by Moberly as the words, the (ipsissima verba) of the Lord Jesus, accurately expressing his thoughts and beliefs.

Quote:
"... we cannot (consistently with any critical view of the fourth Gospel) use them to prove facts about the Consciousness of Christ which are not sufficiently attested by the general picture of that consciousness resulting upon the Gospel records as a whole."
In that context, having read the recent Conybeare piece, and being one of many dupes who did not really understand the massive evidence in support of the historical verse, Randall Hastings make a fly-by critique of Matthew 28:19:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
"without the slightest reference to the fact that the language of St. Paul about Baptism, 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' and the well-attested employment of such a formula in the early Church, have suggested grave doubts as to whether we have before us in this passage words which really came from the lips of Christ.”
Later he wrote a book on the atonement topic:

The idea of atonement in Christian theology (1919)
Hastings Rashdall
https://archive.org/details/atonemen...shuoft/page/n8

Where his view of the atonement was "subjective atonement". It is not a pleasant read.

So there is nothing of substance in this reference, and the description from FZ is once again shoddy scholarship, not even giving he author's name. You get the sense he was simply copying some secondary source without attribution. (And Rashdall Hastings is a primary source in a very thin way, as he is simply a Conybeare parrot.)

However, we can study and learn a bit by our own studies.

Last edited by Steven Avery; Yesterday at 11:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old Yesterday, 11:17 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
why does FZ give us so much shoddy scholarship?

Emphasis added:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
... He just getting tired of watching the thread get longer but no solid evidence. Again, you propose that Matthew is a botched document. One that was originally in a language other than the Greek manuscripts which have been preserved to us. Your own translation that you are trying to sell isn't from a Hebrew original correct? But from English Bibles, written to suit your own thoughts and feelings? ...
This, I believe, explains why the scholarship is so shoddy. Notice that no errors and omissions are even acknowledged, no corrections made.

We can expect the same errors and omissions and doctoring of quotes and reliance on secondary and tertiary sources and plagiarism to be in any presentation by FZ in the years to come.

Last edited by Steven Avery; Today at 01:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old Today, 09:44 AM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 30,908
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
We have only begun this, as we progress we will see more issues raised.
Begun? Looks like the only thing you have proven is that you believe that Matthew isn’t authentic. That its issues aren’t simple. Could you explain why some Greek words used in Matthew cannot be translated into Hebrew without losing the meaning of the sentence? FZ, you are a translator, therefore you understand the complexity of translation. Translation is more interpretation of the individual. Hence the reason translations like the LXX, MT, Vulgate, KJV, Reina Valera needed groups, councils, more than one scholar reviewing the translation. If not, then we would have what we have here. One translator defending his own opinion of the text. We need more solid reasons with inrefutable evidence to discard a verse. Meaning, we need a little more than “I don’t think Jesus would of said that” FZ, we can line up Theologians from Dan to Beersheba, and they will debate on what they “think” Jesus said or didn’t say.
All ending up with a New Testament shredded on the floor. Jehovah Witnesses did this with their New International Version. Erases verses from the New Testament. Adding to others “in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” By the misunderstanding of the Greek oringinal manuscript they end up losing the meaning. What you have is a ghost manuscript, one supposedly written in Hebrew. Therefore since it is a phantom you can only rely on your own whim of what that Hebrew original would read like. What is even scarier, is that you really don’t mind. Please reconsider your position. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion that something may or may not be. It is another thing to make opinions holy writ.
__________________
ALL pastors are hindrances and one should never have a pastor they will only abuse you and you will get hurt. Instead get your instructions from forum gurus that have never built a church.~Steve Epley.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Counterfeit Gospels Socialite Fellowship Hall 4 12-05-2010 07:51 AM
What if all we had was the Gospels? Timmy Deep Waters 18 11-08-2010 06:51 PM
Lost gospels KWSS1976 Fellowship Hall 12 04-08-2009 10:13 AM
In the Four Gospels why do they Differ concerning the Resurrection... revrandy Fellowship Hall 2 01-22-2008 05:26 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by shag
- by Esaias
- by Esaias

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.