Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

If you have only received some of the quotes you've used here as they come in from emails or other friendly sources, but you have not independently verified them yourself to see if they are accurate, then Steve is correct, it is poor scholarship.

Steve and I have clashed in a few areas here at AFF, but if he demonstrated that I was in error on a certain point, I acknowledged the correction and discarded the point I was trying to make.

The fact is, you often learn more by the people who don't agree with you, and are critical of your stated positions, then from the ones that simply nod and say nothing. I think you should give Steve some benefit of the doubt.

Excellent post

[votivesoul]

Here's the correct way to cite sources:

If I am quoting something from Eusebius' Church History, it is likely I am quoting not from the direct source, but from a translation, so it's not enough to simply offer the quote, then attribute it to Eusebius, but rather, something like this:

Meier, Dr. Paul L., Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007 (then perhaps a page number).

If the quote from Eusebius is found in a different work, it would look something like this:

Eusebius: Church History, as cited/found in:

Bernard, David K., History of Christian Doctrine: The Post-Apostolic Age to the Middle Ages A.D. 100 - 1500, Vol. I, World Aflame Press, 1995 (then perhaps a page number).

And, depending on the style, for example Chicago, APA, or etc., you might need to add the city and state of the publishing house.

In either case, to simply offer a quote and say it comes from such and such a source, without having seen it and read it for yourself, and then offer it up as legit without knowing for sure, is a very bad idea, because if the quote isn't accurate, is taken out of context, or is cherry-picked, someone might find out and call it out.

Furthermore, without reading the entire work in which the quote is found, one will not have the means of determining if the author in question is a reliable scholar in his or her own right, or just a quack with an idea. Or a severly biased ideologue.

At the university level, this is a surefire way of getting a zero on the essay, and if not properly cited, being accused of plagiarism.

At an even more advanced level, it is very important to quote sources contrary to your position, so you can show their views to be insufficient or in error, as one of, if not the main means whereby you can more readily champion yours.

Now, this isn't a university level forum, just a social forum, but citing sources correctly is part of the rules.

But FZ, you might do well to read up on and offer up quotes and sources of scholars who hold the tradition Matthew 28:19 ending, then refute them.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The fact is, you often learn more by the people who don't agree with you, and are critical of your stated positions, then from the ones that simply nod and say nothing. I think you should give Steve some benefit of the doubt.

Well the brethren Benincasa, Esaias, and Scott, don't agree with me and are critical of my stated positions, but none of them three has written to me in a demeaning way or manner. I value their input even if sometimes I think they are wrong, but it forces me to do more research and present my arguments better next time. I take these sessions with them as learning and training sessions.

They think I am wrong and are not shy to say so, but they have disagreed without being highly disagreeable and insulting, I hope they change their mind, but they are OK even if they do not , and I am quite willing to listen to their arguments.

As to that other individual, I will not even bother to say his name, the way I look at it is this way.
There are over 7 billion people in this planet, and I do not speak to even 1 billion of them, more like only a few thousand people.

I simply do not have the time nor the patience to deal with persons like him.
So I will simply place him with the billions of people that I do not speak to.

Besides there are already some people who are beginning to understand and believe the arguments that I present for my case, so I would rather communicate with them than with him.

[Scott Pitta]

A graceful demeanor while discussing theology is something I learned from Dan Segraves.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Here's the correct way to cite sources:

If I am quoting something from Eusebius' Church History, it is likely I am quoting not from the direct source, but from a translation, so it's not enough to simply offer the quote, then attribute it to Eusebius, but rather, something like this:

Meier, Dr. Paul L., Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007 (then perhaps a page number).

If the quote from Eusebius is found in a different work, it would look something like this:

Eusebius: Church History, as cited/found in:

Bernard, David K., History of Christian Doctrine: The Post-Apostolic Age to the Middle Ages A.D. 100 - 1500, Vol. I, World Aflame Press, 1995 (then perhaps a page number).

And, depending on the style, for example Chicago, APA, or etc., you might need to add the city and state of the publishing house.

In either case, to simply offer a quote and say it comes from such and such a source, without having seen it and read it for yourself, and then offer it up as legit without knowing for sure, is a very bad idea, because if the quote isn't accurate, is taken out of context, or is cherry-picked, someone might find out and call it out.

Furthermore, without reading the entire work in which the quote is found, one will not have the means of determining if the author in question is a reliable scholar in his or her own right, or just a quack with an idea. Or a severly biased ideologue.

At the university level, this is a surefire way of getting a zero on the essay, and if not properly cited, being accused of plagiarism.

At an even more advanced level, it is very important to quote sources contrary to your position, so you can show their views to be insufficient or in error, as one of, if not the main means whereby you can more readily champion yours.

Now, this isn't a university level forum, just a social forum, but citing sources correctly is part of the rules.

But FZ, you might do well to read up on and offer up quotes and sources of scholars who hold the tradition Matthew 28:19 ending, then refute them.

Thank you for this information, I am already doing some of these steps, maybe I was not too aware on some of the other steps, but I am not a university scholar.

Now regarding my citations, in over 10 years of research, more like almost 20, I have read a great many books, searching for information on this subject, So I do have a very large cache of information.

To give you an idea of how much research I have done, I have 9 library cards 1 for the county of Los Angeles, 1 for the county of Orange, 1 for the county of Ventura 1 for the city of Los Angeles and 5 others from independent city libraries in Los Angeles county, and let us not forget Mr. google which is another handy resource, and besides these, I also get information from some friendly sources e-mailed to me.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

A graceful demeanor while discussing theology is something I learned from Dan Segraves.

Hey I try to do that, but eventually I get kicked out of trinitarian forums.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

As to that other individual, I will not even bother to say his name....

You have cut yourself off from scholarship improvement.

Many of your sources, whether referenced rightly or falsely, are available on the internet from the primary source. You never give the url.

And in the great majority of the cases it is obvious you never even tried to find, read and understand the source.

votivesoul mentioned reading the whole book, that can be a bit overdone, but, when available, you do have to at least read the section in full. And try to represent the position accurately. e.g. if a writer is attacking a full 3 or 5 verses as inauthentic, that has to be mentioned. Else you are cherry-picking, misrepresenting and involved in shoddy scholarship.

And you are already repeating claims that look to be simply wrong. Unless you up your game, substantially, none of your references can be trusted. If you do not know where you got a reference, and you have not tried to determine the true source, you have to say it is an unverified reference.

You did not originate this problem. When Tim Hegg, who is pretty solid in scholarship, reviewed the claims of Clinton D. Willis, he really nailed the huge scholarship problem. Ripped the Willis "scholarship" approach to shreds. Unfortunately, rather than take his critique to heart, those supporting an alternative Matthew 28:19 have only gone downhill.

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

And Oneness believers should be aware that this has become a stain on oneness scholarship in general. The problems have been noticed by Trinitarians, Messianics and others. There are actually two distinct problems:

1) using and making weak arguments to try to change the pure Bible text.

2) poor scholarship to try to support the arguments

This is why I question whether tolerance is the proper approach. We have a real responsibility before the Lord Jesus to defend the integrity of our beliefs.

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

[navygoat1998]

I for one have enjoyed reading the discourse between you brethren.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

I for one have enjoyed reading the discourse between you brethren.

I have begun a new thread called "The traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation" it is in the general debate and discussion topics page.

In that new thread I will slowly but surely will show that it is in deed a changed scripture.

I will be giving some of my information in small chunks so people will not choke.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I have begun a new thread called "The traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation" it is in the general debate and discussion topics page.

In that new thread I will slowly but surely will show that it is in deed a changed scripture.

I will be giving some of my information in small chunks so people will not choke.

People will not choke?

You still never discuss the real problem of your textual criticism. If one verse was added what about all the others? Why can't you explain the technical problems concerning the impossibility of translating certain verses of Matthew into Hebrew?