Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ's argument is dying a slow and painful death. The whole hullabaloo over the so-called spurious scripture has flipped flopped a few times in this thread. He has gone from the mythical Hebrew Only Matthew void of the traditional Matthew 28:19. To proving to us the importance of Jesus name baptism??? Which no one here would try to refute due to everyone believing in Jesus name baptism. So, why is FZ going in those directions on a thread that is obviously directed in proving the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious? Because FZ, knows that the argument against the traditional Matthew 28:19 is futile, and lacks good strong evidence. Therefore FZ now fills pages proving the need to baptism in Jesus name. As if that proves his argument that Matthew 28:19 in its traditional wording is spurious

Nope my arguments are not dying a slow and painful death. On the contrary they are starting to grow up.

Perhaps you have failed to understand my arguments, but I can assure you they are in tip top shape.

You say the mythical Hebrew Only Matthew, but I have provided proof that many people considered it quite real.

[FlamingZword]

Die Symphonie der Evangelien: eine Zusammenstellung der ächten Bestandtheile der 4 evangelischen Urkunden, in einer neun Uebersetzung und mit wissenschaftlichen Erläuterungen (G) The Symphony of the Gospels: a Compilation of the Prohibited Constituents of the Four Protestant Documents, in a Nine Translation and with Scientific Explanations (1863) by Doctor Gustav Adolph Freytag. Has the following “Therefore go out and convert all peoples, baptizing them in my name and teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you. Yes, rely on it, I am with you all the days to the end of the world." (Translation by Gerd Imhoff)

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Copyists copy manuscripts. Sometimes they edit them. In the case of Mt. 28:19, they simply copied what was written. Had there been editing, there would have been variation in the manuscripts. But there is none.

Copyists simply copy it down. Some copyists edit. Or others edited the finished work.

Has FZ studied the copyist behavior of the manuscripts of Matthew ??

I do not worry that there is none variation of that specific text, the reason is quite obvious. the Trinitarians were quite protective of their only text which gave some kind of support to their false doctrine.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes, you write and the others judge. It is clear you do not understand. You say "all the manuscripts are wrong" but on what basis? Not a textual basis, that's for sure. You have no text, no manuscript, that reads the way you want it to read. So, you just rewrite the Bible to suit your fancy. Just like the JWs and the Sacred Namers and most other cults.

I believe what is written. You write what you believe. Big difference in the two approaches.

It is clear? to whom, to you?

I beginning to think that you are kind of impatient, I have barely scratched the surface of all the evidence there is and you are already saying I have no basis.

kind of in a rush, aren't you?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It is clear? to whom, to you?

I beginning to think that you are kind of impatient, I have barely scratched the surface of all the evidence there is and you are already saying I have no basis.

kind of in a rush, aren't you?

If you say THE TEXT WE HAVE IS WRONG, then my ONLY response is SHOW ME THE MANUSCRIPTS.

I go by the Word, AS WRITTEN, not as a bunch of messed up agnostics and atheists and antichrists and goofy theologians want it to be.

You aren't in a rush because you're playing 3 Card Monte and simply put don't have the goods on this issue. Sorry, but some of us aren't impressed or moved by volume of posts when it comes to THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you say THE TEXT WE HAVE IS WRONG, then my ONLY response is SHOW ME THE MANUSCRIPTS.

I go by the Word, AS WRITTEN, not as a bunch of messed up agnostics and atheists and antichrists and goofy theologians want it to be.

You aren't in a rush because you're playing 3 Card Monte and simply put don't have the goods on this issue. Sorry, but some of us aren't impressed or moved by volume of posts when it comes to THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE.

Amen. FZ, please forgive me, your argument isn't dying a slow and painful death. It is already dead. The only reason why we are still posting in this thread because you are still posting dead theologians (now Germans) so we comment. You're still refuse to answer my questions. Can you tell me how you fix passages that don't work in Hebrew? Since you claim that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew by the opinions and taken out of context dead people, can you explain this issue to me? I believe I asked you a few times but you seem to ignore it. That isn't very honest . So, please answer, how to do straighten out the problem of Greek only passages? How can you translate them into Hebrew, without them making NO SENSE. Does a camel go through the eye of a needle, or does a rope go through the eye of a needle? Is the foundation built on Peter, or not? Did Jesus call a woman a dog or a little dog that eats scraps? Ball is in your court Mr Hebrew Onlyist Translator of Bibles.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It is clear? to whom, to you?

I beginning to think that you are kind of impatient, I have barely scratched the surface of all the evidence there is and you are already saying I have no basis.

kind of in a rush, aren't you?

Sorry, but if you can't spoon feed it isn't our fault. That simply means you stink at what you do as far as relaying information. If the student can't figure it out, how do you expect them to relay the information back to you? I have people who can't properly relay what they claim they believe as far as the Bible goes. I just tell them that they really don't know what they claim to believe. Mostly that happens in the realm of eschatology. Because in eschatology people usually are well versed in what they had been told, not in what they actually found in the Bible.

Yet, in this situation you want to jab Esaias when he is actually asking you some logical questions. Nothing you wouldn't be asked at my church or one of my outdoor Bible studies. You would then have to answer, or just simply respond with "I don't know." Which is a quick respect builder. Because no one likes waffling and making up an answer. It kind of loses your audience. Which allows blood in the water, and then the sharks start to circle in. In a rush? Yeah, because if you were doing this in front of a church family, or at least 20 peoples sitting in front of Whole Foods, they would want answers. Not snarky comments, which only works if you are right. But will get your head handed to you if you give stupid false comebacks. Yep, rush is the case, because YOU are supposed to be the expert. If we were sitting at a table with you, we wouldn't have days, months, or years for you to prove your thesis. It should only take the proof of solid evidence to turn anyone around. Not a bunch of ecclesiastical hooey.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

In many cases, though, you never read the sources, you simply plagiarized from secondary and tertiary sources.

FZ, how do you plead?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I do not worry that there is none variation of that specific text, the reason is quite obvious. the Trinitarians were quite protective of their only text which gave some kind of support to their false doctrine.

Absurd. The verse appears so entirely modalistic and Oneness, one wonders why Trinitarians aren't chomping at the bit to try and prove it is a Sabellian interpolation.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It is clear? to whom, to you?

I beginning to think that you are kind of impatient, I have barely scratched the surface of all the evidence there is and you are already saying I have no basis.

kind of in a rush, aren't you?

Circumstantial evidence doesn't hold up in court. If you have the trump card, just play out your best argument and change the world, already.