Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Esaias]

Found a scroll hidden in a cave down in Possum Holler yet?

Where's brother Epley, haven't seen him in awhile?

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Found a scroll hidden in a cave down in Possum Holler yet?

Where's brother Epley, haven't seen him in awhile?

Probably baptizing people in Jesus’ name and prayn’em through to the baptism of the Holy Ghost -chattering like a chipmunk.

Racine Apostolic Church is having revival with Charley Bone on March 31st.

[Esaias]

Brother Avery mentioned this in another thread:

An Introduction to the New Testament: Containing an Examination of the Most Important Questions Relating to the Authority, Interpretation, and Integrity of the Canonical Books, with Reference to the Latest Inquiries, Volume 1 (1848)
Samuel Davidson
https://books.google.com/books?id=D5FHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93

Hence the expression implies the idea of an engagement to believe in Father, Son, and Spirit. But a combination of the threefold view of God implying such reflection, though it might indeed be found in the apostles (2 Cor. xiii. 13), could hardly appear in Christ, and even among the former it could scarcely be exhibited as an object of confession.
Samuel Davidson (1806-1898)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Davidson

Here, a common argument is made that Jesus couldn't have said what the Bible says He said, because Jesus wasn't a trinitarian, and trinitarianism came around much later. The author quoted above claims the trinitarian view of God might be found in the apostles but not at all in Christ.

But this is really a sign of shoddy thinking on Mr Davidson's part.

Matthew was an apostle, his Gospel is an apostle's presentation of the doctrine of Jesus. No less than Paul's writings are likewise.

Secondly, and more importantly, Jesus speaking of Father, son, and Spirit has nothing to do with a "three fold view of God". Although many Oneness people think of God as a trinity of "aspects" or "modes" in one Person, this type of thinking is actually a reaction to trinitarian error, and does not fully reflect the original apostolic understanding.

By Father, Jesus and His disciples would understand "Jehovah", Adonai, Kurios, the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

By Son, they would understand the Messiah, Son of David, Son of Adam, Son of Man (Dan 7), and Son of God (Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:27, 2 Sam 7:14).

By Spirit, they would understand the anointing, empowering, sanctifying, guiding, controlling presence of God (see Numbers 11:25-29, 1 Sam 10:6-7, Ezekiel ch 3, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Joel ch 2, etc).

There was ONE NAME that conjoined all these (God, Messiah, and Spirit), and that name is JESUS CHRIST. See Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is the Son/Messiah (clearly a human being), but also the Father (God manifest in flesh), and indeed the Holy Spirit (primarily in the sense of the Pentecostal empowerment the believers would have during this life, but also in the overall sense of the power and activity of God-interacting-with-Creation, etc).

So Jesus wasn't speaking in trinitarian terms, nor was Matthew, nor was Paul (or John or anyone else). But neither were they speaking or thinking in some kind of post-trinitarian reactionary modalistic framework, either. Once this is realized, the objections to the Lord's words (like the one quoted above) are driven away like so much chaff.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Avery mentioned this in another thread:

An Introduction to the New Testament: Containing an Examination of the Most Important Questions Relating to the Authority, Interpretation, and Integrity of the Canonical Books, with Reference to the Latest Inquiries, Volume 1 (1848)
Samuel Davidson
https://books.google.com/books?id=D5FHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93

Hence the expression implies the idea of an engagement to believe in Father, Son, and Spirit. But a combination of the threefold view of God implying such reflection, though it might indeed be found in the apostles (2 Cor. xiii. 13), could hardly appear in Christ, and even among the former it could scarcely be exhibited as an object of confession.
Samuel Davidson (1806-1898)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Davidson

Here, a common argument is made that Jesus couldn't have said what the Bible says He said, because Jesus wasn't a trinitarian, and trinitarianism came around much later. The author quoted above claims the trinitarian view of God might be found in the apostles but not at all in Christ.

But this is really a sign of shoddy thinking on Mr Davidson's part.

Matthew was an apostle, his Gospel is an apostle's presentation of the doctrine of Jesus. No less than Paul's writings are likewise.

Secondly, and more importantly, Jesus speaking of Father, son, and Spirit has nothing to do with a "three fold view of God". Although many Oneness people think of God as a trinity of "aspects" or "modes" in one Person, this type of thinking is actually a reaction to trinitarian error, and does not fully reflect the original apostolic understanding.

By Father, Jesus and His disciples would understand "Jehovah", Adonai, Kurios, the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

By Son, they would understand the Messiah, Son of David, Son of Adam, Son of Man (Dan 7), and Son of God (Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:27, 2 Sam 7:14).

By Spirit, they would understand the anointing, empowering, sanctifying, guiding, controlling presence of God (see Numbers 11:25-29, 1 Sam 10:6-7, Ezekiel ch 3, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Joel ch 2, etc).

There was ONE NAME that conjoined all these (God, Messiah, and Spirit), and that name is JESUS CHRIST. See Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is the Son/Messiah (clearly a human being), but also the Father (God manifest in flesh), and indeed the Holy Spirit (primarily in the sense of the Pentecostal empowerment the believers would have during this life, but also in the overall sense of the power and activity of God-interacting-with-Creation, etc).

So Jesus wasn't speaking in trinitarian terms, nor was Matthew, nor was Paul (or John or anyone else). But neither were they speaking or thinking in some kind of post-trinitarian reactionary modalistic framework, either. Once this is realized, the objections to the Lord's words (like the one quoted above) are driven away like so much chaff.

Amen!

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

An Introduction to the New Testament: Containing an Examination of the Most Important Questions Relating to the Authority, Interpretation, and Integrity of the Canonical Books, with Reference to the Latest Inquiries, Volume 1 (1848)
Samuel Davidson
https://books.google.com/books?id=D5FHAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA93

Hence the expression implies the idea of an engagement to believe in Father, Son, and Spirit. But a combination of the threefold view of God implying such reflection, though it might indeed be found in the apostles (2 Cor. xiii. 13), could hardly appear in Christ, and even among the former it could scarcely be exhibited as an object of confession.
Samuel Davidson (1806-1898)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Davidson

Here, a common argument is made that Jesus couldn't have said what the Bible says He said, because Jesus wasn't a trinitarian, and trinitarianism came around much later. The author quoted above claims the trinitarian view of God might be found in the apostles but not at all in Christ.

But this is really a sign of shoddy thinking on Mr Davidson's part.

Matthew was an apostle, his Gospel is an apostle's presentation of the doctrine of Jesus. No less than Paul's writings are likewise.

Secondly, and more importantly, Jesus speaking of Father, son, and Spirit has nothing to do with a "three fold view of God". Although many Oneness people think of God as a trinity of "aspects" or "modes" in one Person, this type of thinking is actually a reaction to trinitarian error, and does not fully reflect the original apostolic understanding.

By Father, Jesus and His disciples would understand "Jehovah", Adonai, Kurios, the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

By Son, they would understand the Messiah, Son of David, Son of Adam, Son of Man (Dan 7), and Son of God (Psalm 2:7, Psalm 89:27, 2 Sam 7:14).

By Spirit, they would understand the anointing, empowering, sanctifying, guiding, controlling presence of God (see Numbers 11:25-29, 1 Sam 10:6-7, Ezekiel ch 3, Ezekiel 36:26-27, Joel ch 2, etc).

There was ONE NAME that conjoined all these (God, Messiah, and Spirit), and that name is JESUS CHRIST. See Isaiah 9:6. Jesus is the Son/Messiah (clearly a human being), but also the Father (God manifest in flesh), and indeed the Holy Spirit (primarily in the sense of the Pentecostal empowerment the believers would have during this life, but also in the overall sense of the power and activity of God-interacting-with-Creation, etc).

So Jesus wasn't speaking in trinitarian terms, nor was Matthew, nor was Paul (or John or anyone else). But neither were they speaking or thinking in some kind of post-trinitarian reactionary modalistic framework, either. Once this is realized, the objections to the Lord's words (like the one quoted above) are driven away like so much chaff.

Excellent post, and many years ago I would agree with it 100% except that after I started my research I found that while your explanation is great, it does not fit all the evidence. I have only posted from one branch of the evidence that I have, I have way too many other branches, which I have not posted from, but I am being methodical (Methodist? )

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Excellent post, and many years ago I would agree with it 100% except that after I started my research I found that while your explanation is great, it does not fit all the evidence. I have only posted from one branch of the evidence that I have, I have way too many other branches, which I have not posted from, but I am being methodical (Methodist? )

FZ, the Lord love you in Jesus name. But, way too many branches? Sounds like a thick covering of overgrowth. Take the chainsaw call real manuscript and historical evidence, and cut through. All the branches when laid out and considered lead to a root called “the entire New Testament” has been horribly tampered with. I know you posted that you don’t care about the other verses. But it doesn’t matter about what we care for. This is an inconvenient truth. Because if Jesus didn’t say the original Matthew 28:19? Then the odds are very high He didn’t say anything else contained in the NT. Also your argument for a Hebrew Only New Testament causes major issues for things which Jesus said that cannot be translated into Hebrew/Aramaic. So are this statements of Christ also false? You see your problem doesn’t become smaller, but becomes greater.
I pray that you realize this soon.

In JESUS name

Your friend.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK so far we have found 63 gospels of Matthew without a trinitarian text ending.

I started the collection back in 1999 with just 1 gospel of Matthew which committed the trinitarian ending, but little by little we have been able to find many more.

so this means that I am not alone in saying that the original Matthew read "in My name" instead of the triune phrase.

Now it's time to use my sharingan!!!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

FZ, where did anyone disrespect you in this thread?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, where did anyone disrespect you in this thread?

I went back to just the first 10 pages and collected a few things. Here they are

These are statements directed to me by one person.

"Thanks for the warning that textual apostates are active in apostolic circles."

So I am a textual apostate., OK I have been called much worse.

"you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony."

perhaps I do, just a simple put down.

""exact citations" is a deception, form you,"

So now I am a deceiver, OK I have been called a lying heretic by trinitarians.

"Your "scholarship" is such a mess "

just another regular put down

"you are not engaged in sincere and honest study or scholarship."

OK so I am not sincere and I am dishonest

"Why? Simply because you are not doing scholarship."

OK that is nice judgement of what I am doing.

"You claimed 100+ allusions. Simply a fabrication."

So now I resort to fabrications.

And this is only from just a small number of pages, would you call this respect?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

And this is only from just a small number of pages, would you call this respect?

You may be a respectable person, and fine in many ways, however the quotes you have posted on this forum are grossly deficient. For precisely the reasons given.

e.g. You have acknowledged that frequently you did not even note the sources of the quotes, and that you are using secondary or tertiary sources that you have not vetted. And it is obvious that you have not made the needed efforts to check primary sources, which often are easily available.

You have not made even one correction, even of blatantly false material that misrepresents the writers, so I would say very simply that at this point your scholarship attempts do not deserve respect.

You have not answered questions, like the supposed 100 allusions, which you likely picked up from someone unknown. Only after you refused to answer, did I note it as a fabrication.

All that negative part of your writing could change, after you have made many changes and corrections, and dropped the quotes that can not be salvaged.

Plus, you really have not been responsive to dialogue with anyone on the thread. You often either ignore or dance around the points made by other posters.