Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending [Archive] - Page 2

Steven Avery

02-11-2019, 10:53 PM

History of Dogma (1893) 3rd English edition, Vol. I footnote 75 & 76 by Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930) Theologian and Church historian. “Matt. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age, which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself.” In an earlier thread I went over a bit the fact that Harnack had taken a few differing opinions on the verse.

This footnote (the number is wrong above) can be read online here:

History of dogma
by Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n105

Neil Buchanan is the translator, 1895.

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

The 1893 edition is translated by Edwin Knox Mitchell and does not have the footnote.

Outlines of the history of dogma (1893)
https://archive.org/details/outlinesofhistor00harnrich/page/n6

"Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit was esteemed as the mystery through which the sins of blindness are wholly set aside, and which only thenceforward, however, imposes obligations (mortal sins, committed after baptism, were considered unpardonable, and yet pardoning power was reserved for God who here and there exercises it upon the earth through inspired men.

See also:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n107
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n159
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n183
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n233 While the quote is fine, FZ using secondary sources without attribution has mangled the location of the reference.

The year of the edition is wrong, no page number is given, the footnote number is wrong, and from what I can see calling it the 3rd English edition looks wrong (it is the translation of the 3rd German edition.) Again, based on what I have seen again and again, I doubt that FZ actually looked at the reference. And he brought over errors from an unspecified source. Using secondary sources without referencing them is plagiarism, and is often caught when errors are carried over.

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

Here is Harnack in 1904

The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Volume 1 (1904)
By Adolf von Harnack
https://books.google.com/books?id=oc1CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA44

There is text and footnote, and it is quite a bit different.

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

Steven Avery

02-11-2019, 11:20 PM

Here are statements from two catholic teachers.
Rev. Prof. Dr hab. Szymon Drzyżdżyk
Dr. Aleksandra Brzemia-Bonarek (Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow)

From the article "From Baptism in the Name of Jesus to Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity" Did someone translate this from the Polish?

OD CHRZTU W IMI£ JEZUSA
DO CHRZTU W IMIS TROJCY SWISTEJ
Aleksandra Brzemia-Bonarek
Szymon Drzyzdzyk
http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/2575/brzemia_bonarek_drzyzdzyk_art_rozwoj_dogmatu.pdf

If so, who and where?
You should give the actual title of the article as written.

And it looks like Google translate (which I call Google mangle.)

Steven Avery

02-11-2019, 11:26 PM

Professor Eduard Karl August Riehm in his Handwörterbuch des Biblischen Altertums für gebildete Bibelleser (G) Dictionary of biblical antiquity for educated readers of the Bible (1884) p. 1620, puts Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 and Romans 6:3 as the real mode of baptism and dismisses Matthew 28:19 as not authentic. And I covered the problems in this reference.

Eduard Karl August Riehm - (1830-1888)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Karl_August_Riehm

More problems with plagiarism from secondary sources, used without attribution.

First, this is in Vol. 2, and the baptism section is p. 1644-1646.

Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums für gebildete Bibelleser, Volume 2 (1884)
By Eduard Karl August Riehm
https://books.google.com/books?id=21NRAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1646

The verses are given in the first column of p. 1646.

And I am skeptical about the claim that Riehm "dismisses Matthew 28:19 as not authentic". However I will defer to any of our readers who are good on the 1800s German.

Steven Avery

02-12-2019, 09:20 PM

Historical Evidence in favour of Matthew 28:19 and Response to Claims of Inauthenticity
http://www.asitreads.com/blog/2018/2/22/historical-evidence-in-favour-of-matthew-chapter-2819-and-response-to-claims-of-inauthenticity

Looks like part of the Adventist non-Trinitarian movement (at least not in the creedal sense.)

Some helpful material on this page, the ECW lists look similar to what has been developed by James Snapp and myself (and many years back, a fellow named Joe Viel). This web page takes a bit of a reactive, response, approach, however, he does have good value-added material on the higher criticism element, and some of the historical debate, and he has many of the ECW references.

This author, or someone on the website, used to be sympathetic to the Matthew 28:19 argumentation.

Just thought I would share this, for more context.

This whole issue is rarely touched in textual criticism realms, which are popular today. Although you do have occasional contributions by Peter Head, Jan Krans and others. (And I had a little discussion with Bart Ehrman on a textualcriticism forum.)

So I may dig into these various sources to improve what I have on the purebibleforum, which right now is dedicated mostly to the ECW references.

Matthew 28:19 -Ante-Nicene referencing (before Eusebius) - the Ehrman textual criticism discussion
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?983-Matthew-28-19-Ante-Nicene-referencing-(before-Eusebius)-the-Ehrman-textual-criticism-discussion

From the studies of the last weeks, there is a lot of new material.

FlamingZword

02-12-2019, 10:12 PM

Scott Pitta

02-13-2019, 01:33 AM

The whole issue is not touched because there is no issue. It may be a early church father issue. But it is not a TC issue.

No textual variant means it is not a TC issue.

Steven Avery

02-13-2019, 09:19 PM

Die Taufformel (G) The Baptismal Formula (1884) by theologian Johannes H. Scholten, writes: “The mutual comparison of the texts of our first three Gospels and the critical study of their age thus lead to the conclusion that the account of the institution of baptism by Jesus in the canonical Gospel of Matthew was named after a relative later date must be accepted”Jan Hendrik Scholten (1811-1885)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Scholten

Through Scholten, Abraham Kuenen became interested in theology; Scholten was not then the radical theologian he became later. The two scholars in course of time created a movement resembling that of the Tübingen School in Germany. From his theology there "began to rise a different type of spirit, the spirit of absolute antisupernaturalism of the German idealistic kind."

You should give the location and spot:

Die Taufformel, Volume 43; Volume 156 (1885)
Johannes Henricus Scholten
https://books.google.com/books?id=2vIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5

“Die gegenseitige Vergleichung der Texte unserer drei ersten Evangelien und die kritische Untersuchung über ihr Alter führen somit zu dem Schlusse, dass dem Bericht über die Einsetzung der Taufe durch Jesus in dem nach Matthäus benannten kanonischen Evangelium ein relativ spates Datum zuerkannt werden muss.” - p. 5

Since you have published this with the German rather than your mangled English from a puter translator.
http://www.oocities.org/fdocc3/quotations.htm

It is clear that in the reference here you plagiarized from Conybeare.
And you only worked off that secondary source.

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, Volumes 1-2 (1900)
The Eusebian form of the Text Matth. 28,19.
By Fred. C. Conybeare, Oxford.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-ZDAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA287

The Conybeare article has also been published as a separate PDF.

FlamingZword

02-14-2019, 12:59 AM

The whole issue is not touched because there is no issue. It may be a early church father issue. But it is not a TC issue.

No textual variant means it is not a TC issue.

We have only begun this, as we progress we will see more issues raised.

FlamingZword

02-14-2019, 01:00 AM

Steven Avery

02-14-2019, 06:37 AM

The Harmony of the Gospels Introductory Essay (1887) by Professor M. B. Riddle. Eusebius of Caesarea (died AD 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions. This looks accurate, and it looks like FZ plagiarized this information as a secondary source, his common method.

Matthew Riddle Brown (1836-1916)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Brown_Riddle

The Harmony of the Gospels (c. 1888)
translated by the rev. s. d. f. salmond, d.d.,
free college, aberdeen
edited, with notes and introduction, by the rev. m. b. riddle, d.d.,
professor of new-testament exegesis, western theological seminary, allcgheny, pa.
Introductory Essay
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QyU-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92
Also
https://books.google.com/books?id=v3X2nmtQ2jYC&pg=PT211

p. 93 has the text about the sections and canons and Tischendorf's edition.

Eusebius of Caesarea (died A.D. 340) adopted a similar set of divisions, adding to them numbers from I to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions.496 The influence of this system seems to have been great, but Eusebius often accepts a parallelism where there is really none whatever. Some of the sections are very brief, containing only part of a verse. Hence the tables of sections furnish no basis for estimating the matter common to two or more evangelists. This is a bit dated, since there is lots of ensuing scholarship in the next 130 years on the Eusebian sections. Nonetheless, the reference is solid.

[“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz.]FZ is conflating the two quotes.

And since we do not know:

a) who is "Dr. Cruz",
b) where he wrote this, and
c) what was his reasoning,

from a scholarship standpoint it is worthless. Note the trick of combining legitimate information (which does not say anything of special interest) with a shoddy sourced quote. And I doubt that Flaming can help on this, I tend to think he did not even check the Matthew Brown Riddle source. In other words, the trick may have been in his unreferenced and plagiarized source, rather than implemented by FZ.

None dare call this scholarship.

This is especially egregious since it is hard to see any way that the Eusebian sections can shed light on the exact text of Eusebius, much less that of Matthew. Plus, who is Dr. Cruz, if there is such a person commenting as above, and what language did he write, and what did he say?

Steven Avery

FlamingZword

02-14-2019, 09:47 PM

Esaias

02-14-2019, 09:53 PM

Brother Avery's research makes this thread worth reading. :)

Scott Pitta

02-15-2019, 05:45 AM

Steven Avery

02-15-2019, 06:06 AM

Harnack says: It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. Does Harnack mean that all post resurrection speeches of our Lord are not original ?? If so, none of the accounts of the great commission are original. I disagree with Harnack's assessement. And I think you are correct, that his doubts included post-resurrection reports in general. Also the Gospel of John, the resurrection, the virgin birth and more. He definitely was not:

The great Dr. Adolph Harnack In an earlier day FZ used to claim, without attribution, that Harnack:

believed the original wording in Mat 28:19 was "in my name", That seems to now be gone-claim. (And I had questioned it, no response, but it was dropped from the FZ posts.)

And I put a bit about Harnack here:

In an earlier thread I went over a bit the fact that Harnack had taken a few differing opinions on the verse. This footnote (the number is wrong above) can be read online here: ...

FlamingZword

02-15-2019, 07:55 PM

Brother Avery's research makes this thread worth reading. :)

thanks a lot Esaias. :ohplease

Steven Avery

02-15-2019, 08:50 PM

Brother Avery's research makes this thread worth reading. :) Thanks.

And I discovered today that a couple of writers have pointed out the shoddy scholarship that comes from the contra Matthew 28:19 crowd.

First, here is an example from this forum:

Once again the person responsible for this collection of quotes has added in remarks that are not found in the original source, and these added words shamefully alter Ratzinger’s intended meaning. It is hardly surprising that no bibliographical information is provided to facilitate checking into this quotation. In spite of this authors’ best effort, I have located the source of the quotation. Once this quote is read in context it becomes apparent that Ratzinger is not saying that the text of Matthew 28:19 formed or took shape or originated in the second and third centuries in Rome. Rather, he was saying that the Apostle’s Creed took shape in connection with the way baptism was administered in the ancient Church. Here is what Ratzinger wrote:... Was it not I who spent my time delving through the interent so I could find the proper cardinal ratzinger quote in context so I could show the shoddiness and outright deceit being used in the so called evidence that was being posted on this forum. I'll be a good sport and show the deceitfulness in one more piece of that preponderance of evidence you have:.... The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4 ... The outright deceitfulness about what the actual encyclopedia was saying is astonishing! FZ is just following in a pattern that goes back to at least 2006. It looks like he is the inheritor of the problem, and basically has done very little of his own study.

A paper by Tim Hegg, dated 2006, goes into this problem in more depth.

These problems have been compounded by the plagiarism aspect, where FZ does not tell us where he got the information, since it is obvious that he rarely, if ever, even checks the source he is referencing.

Plus he has a little cottage with the books that are loaded with misinformation.

And I just realized the need to research each one of these references carefully recently.
With the results we see in this thread. (And the lack of scholarly responsiveness.)

Steven

FlamingZword

02-15-2019, 09:11 PM

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1 “Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.”, “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. The use of a Trinitarian Formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit.
The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ."

Scott Pitta

02-16-2019, 01:41 AM

Steven Avery

02-16-2019, 02:28 AM

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1 “Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.” ... The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ."
So who penned the article for the Hastings Dictionary quote ? Each article is signed at the end.Good point, now and when you made it earlier.

And I do not think FZ can give you an answer. He is plagiarizing secondary and tertiary sources and on the Hastings quotes they are a total mess, with missing "..." and various inserted parenthesis by who knows who, and very unclear sources.

That quote above could be from a Baptism article, or Trinity, or possibly Sacraments.
FZ is including two different editions, and the Hastings Bible Dictionary quotes he gives could include snippets from:

1898 - Alfred Plummer, Baptism (https://archive.org/details/dictionbibjames01hast/page/238)
1909 - Charles Archibald Anderson Scott, Baptism (https://archive.org/details/cu31924029271223/page/n103)
1910 - Kirsopp Lake, Baptism (Early Christians) (https://books.google.com/books?id=oEATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q&f=false), (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings)
1963 - Andrew Bruce Davidson, Trinity (possibly)

The 1910 by Kirsopp Lake has something similar to the "cumulative evidence" section:
The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism is thus distinctly against the view that Mt 28:19 represents the ipsissima verba of Christ in instituting Christian baptism.
https://books.google.com/books?id=oEATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380
Keep in mind that Kirsopp Lake was possibly the strongest ally to Conybeare.

And I dealt with some of the quoting problems involving Hastings Dictionary, just the other day. FZ had another quote that he plagiarized from somewhere.

More problems of not having read the section, misrepresentation and apparent plagiarism.

We have the 1898 edition online.
The key pages are 241-242.

Totally different than what was represented. Most of what is given as quotes are not there. A scholastic disaster.

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

Possibly the missing quotes are in the 1963 edition. We know that FZ has not checked, since he would have quoted more accurately. If they are there, I would like to know who wrote them, since only the first quote can be attributed to Plummer, edited by Hastings and Selbie. And get the larger context.

Clearly "viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew" is simply reporting the views of Conybeare and some others. So there is nothing special in the quotes. If that had been written in 1898, it would have some interest, since the Conybeare papers came later.

And Tim Hegg dealt with one of the scholarly disasters around the Hastings Dictionary entry here:

Matthew 28:19
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος'
A Text-Critical Investigation (2006)
https://torahresource.com/pdf-articles/matt-28-19-a-text-critical-investigation.pdf

Willis also quotes from Hastings Dictionary of the Bible in order to provide proof that scholars generally regard the tripartite phrase of Matthew 28:19 to be a late Catholic addition. However, if one consults the article itself,6 one discovers that the quote given is extracted from a list of four general hypotheses offered by scholars regarding the tripartite phrase, a hypothesis which the author of the article (Alfred Plummer) rejects!

6.James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible 4 vols (Scribners, 1905), 1.241–42
https://torahresource.com/pdf-articles/matt-28-19-a-text-critical-investigation.pdfApparently Clinton D. Willis was a major player in creating the scholarship disaster.

And Scott's point is 100% true. The first issue, on any of these Encyclopedia or Bible Dictionary articles, after trying to identify the article, is to identify the author. Generally right at the end, and if it is initials, there is a spot in front cross-referencing initials and names.

None dare call this scholarship.

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

grace in the wonderful name of Jesus!
Steven

Steven Avery

02-16-2019, 08:04 AM

We will switch gears a bit here from the FZ references to general referencing.

Some of the Hastings references have given a page number without a year, title or name of author. Here is an example.

Feeding the Inner-Man (2009)
By Ralph J. Mcintyre
https://books.google.com/books?id=gTr363OIl-EC&pg=PA34

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME
According to History

...

E. HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2, pgs. 377-379 Christian baptism was administered using the words, “In the name of JESUS.” The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in Early Church History. Baptism was always in the name of the LORD JESUS until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.

G. HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2, pg 377
(Acts 2:38). Name was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in JESUS' name became His personal property. “Ye are Christ’s” (1 Corinthians 3:23).Here the Hastings article is

Baptism (New Testament) by James Vernon Bartlet (1863-1940).in the 1910 edition above that also has the Kirsopp Lake material.

You can see a bit of matching text:

that ‘name’ was an ancient synonym for ‘person-’ ... The one became thereby the personal property of tho other, - p. 377

The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort is not similarly suggested, in spite of 2 Co 13:16. - p. 378 Clearly we do not have quotes, and snippets sans context are mixed in with commentary.

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

Take this bogus claim, from the misquote:

"The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in Early Church History."

You will find this faux reference up on Apostolic sites.

Apostolic Archives, International
http://www.apostolicarchives.com/articles/article/8801925/180090.htm

It seems to exist back even in 1975, I may register for a trial to check more closely.
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/414777212/

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

A tract accredited to Nathaniel Andrew Urshan, and published by Harvestime, had some mangled quotes:

SCRIPTURAL AND HISTORICAL BAPTISM
by: Rev. N. A. Urshan
http://www.oocities.org/robert_upci/scriptural_and_historical_baptis.htm

In addition, Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, page 377: Christian baptism was administered using the words "In the name of Jesus." Out of the same Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, page 378: The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early church history. From the same volume, page 389, note: Baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used.

...

Let me go back to Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, page 377, which concerns the teaching of Acts 2:38: Name was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership.As an example, ere the article in use for the p. 389 ref is the one by Kirsopp Lake, here is text from the Encyclopedia of Religion:

The earliest known formula is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or some similar phrase; this is found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general. p. 389Various changes in this doctored "quote" have greatly distorted the history. Read the two carefully.

One tract was named:

"Water Baptism According To The Bible And Historical References."

Here is how it was noted in one book, with the author Lewis E. Manuwal (1918-2004)

Manuwal, Lewis, “Water Baptism According to the Bible and Historical References”
(End Time Ministries, Hazelwood, Missouri) p.6

Oneness Pentecostal Churches: Their Doctrine and Practice (2002)
By Bruce Tucker
https://books.google.com/books?id=zrB9ZUcuthgC&pg=PA51

You can see that this 2002 book by Bruce Tucker properly ripped to shreds some of the improper citation techniques, with the Hastings material being center-stage.

On p. 54 the discussion shifts to:

"They Use Sources Which Deny The Authenticity Of Matthew 28:19."

And none of this misquoting and other deceptive and false citation methods were at all necessary. They do leave a scholastic stain. Has the current material been checked? Have the perps, or their spiritual heirs, ever given a public acknowledgment, correction and apology? What current historical material from Oneness sources can truly be trusted as accurate? Do we have to check books like:

A History of Oneness
Throughout the Centuries
(Baptism in Jesus Name, the Godhead in Christ)
By Harry A. Peyton

Here, currently online, you can see a generally accurate tract falling down with faux citations at the end, none of which tell you the date or the author or the name of the section. The attempt to check for accuracy and context requires a lot of special effort.

WATER BAPTISM
according to
THE BIBLE
and
HISTORICAL REFERENCES
That relate to doctrines and practices of the Early Church, 33-100 A.D.
compiled by Lewis Manuwal
http://www.newbeginningchurch.com/baptism.htm

Britannica Encyclopedia - 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 - Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion - page 53 - The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion - Volume 2 - Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389

Catholic Encyclopedia - Volume 2, page 435 - Here the authors acknowledged that be baptismal formula was changed by their church.

Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia - Volume 1, page 435 - The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible - page 88 - It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus. You can see the residue of the mangling of the Justin Martyr reference.

The other statements may be true, and they may more or less represent their source, but as they stand they are not real scholarship references.

FlamingZword

02-16-2019, 09:48 AM

So who penned the article for the Hastings Dictionary quote ? Each article is signed at the end.

The cumulative evidence of TC is consistent: there is no textual variant in Mt. 28:19.

Each of the Gospels contains unique wording and phrases. The wording in Matthew is no different. That would fit into the literary criticism category.

That there is no textual variant of Mt. 28:19 does not signify anything if they are all copies of the same prior incorrect translation from the Hebrew.

Yes each gospel contains unique wording and phrases, but those words are consistent with the gospel itself. The gospel of Matthew always pointed toward the name of Jesus, so it is totally inconsistent that at the end, it points away from the name of Jesus.

FlamingZword

02-16-2019, 09:55 AM

In the magazine “The Prophet” in the article “How I got to it” (1899) p. 146 by Doctor Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie it is written “The Baptismal Formula. ― “Is not the Baptismal Formula, as it stands in the Gospels, an evident interpolation, such as, for instance…also the statement of the Trinity which is on all hands conceded to be spurious [i.e.1 Jn. 5:7]…It must be acknowledged that where the Baptismal Formula stands, it seems to have been added later, just as the latter passage, in order to make more definite what seemed symbolic of the doctrine.” (Vol. 1, May, No. 4, p. 146)

Evang.Benincasa

02-16-2019, 10:13 AM

That there is no textual variant of Mt. 28:19 does not signify anything if they are all copies of the same prior incorrect translation from the Hebrew.

Yes each gospel contains unique wording and phrases, but those words are consistent with the gospel itself. The gospel of Matthew always pointed toward the name of Jesus, so it is totally inconsistent that at the end, it points away from the name of Jesus.

Again, this isn’t evidence, but question begging. Matthew was NEVER orinally penned in Hebrew. Why because Hebrew was reduced to a liturgical language by the first century AD. The lingua franca was Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. It is the misconception of Yahwists, and Yahshuites to Judize Christendom. Matthew 28:19 stands in its oringinal traditional form. It teaches us that the NAME is Jesus. That the name of Jesus covers all three titles, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That Matthew isn’t some botched up, cut up, pasted up scroll. Which needed FZ to come along to straighten it out for us while calling Jesus, Yashua.
Because after all that is the real agenda here. It just isn’t the book of Matthew under attack here. But any sort of Hellenization of the first century Judaism. Your entire New Testament is coming under attack by Judizers like my friend FZ. Again, logic dictates that if one part of Matthew is spurious what then of other passages? Other books of the New Testament? FZ has produced nothing in the way of strong argument for an original Hebrew Only Matthew. Everything concerning FZ’s argument is based solely on conjecture. That isn’t good research, but just wishful thinking of a Judizer.

Steven Avery

02-16-2019, 05:06 PM

In the magazine “The Prophet” in the article “How I got to it” (1899) p. 146 by Doctor Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie This reference is fine.

My Message and how I Got to It... (1899)
Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie
https://books.google.com/books?id=y93N2xdMSKoC&pg=PA146

And is a reasonable read, without any substance about mansuscripts and early church writers..
However, Guthrie was pretty flaky.

Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie (1871-1940)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Sylvan_Guthrie

It is hard to determine if Henry Howard Linton is a pseudonym.

Here in his book from Guthrie there is rattling off by Linton his "Scripture Suicide" approach to attacking the scriptures.

All sorts of wild stuff, with the Linton question.

The Fusionist Bible; Or, The Universal World-religion's Index to the Bible (1914)
https://books.google.com/books?id=klpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26

However, int the Message book, there seems to be interesting material about the Nicene Creed, Athanasius and Arius and such.

FlamingZword

02-16-2019, 10:00 PM

Again, this isn’t evidence, but question begging. Matthew was NEVER orinally penned in Hebrew.

Your statement is disputed by many ancient writers, I have already given you some names of who they were, but in case you have forgotten here is a small list again.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned
Now who oshall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Now who would know better if there was a Hebrew gospel of Matthew, you who are two thousand years removed from the gospel or these gentlemen who were only removed about a century later?

Scott Pitta

02-17-2019, 01:43 AM

The argument for a original Hebrew Matthew will gain steam when actual manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew are discovered. None have surfaced in 2000 years.

Steven Avery

02-17-2019, 02:25 AM

Now who would know better if there was a Hebrew gospel of Matthew, Jerome knew quite a bit about the Hebrew Matthew, and, when it was still extrant, it was a different work than our canonical Matthew.

Pure Bible Forum
Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew (not canonical Matthew)
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?543-Jerome-and-the-Hebrew-Matthew-(not-canonical-Matthew)&p=2291#post2291

(I've improved that page tonight.)

We can discuss more later, but anyone interested in the Hebrew Matthew can now find good one-stop shopping. I do hope to add more from Ben Smith, Johann Michaelis and other sources, and maybe add a bit on the ultra-corrupt Shem-tob 14th century anti-Christian edition.

Evang.Benincasa

02-17-2019, 07:02 AM

Your statement is disputed by many ancient writers, I have already given you some names of who they were, but in case you have forgotten here is a small list again.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned
Now who oshall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Now who would know better if there was a Hebrew gospel of Matthew, you who are two thousand years removed from the gospel or these gentlemen who were only removed about a century later?

Sorry, but NONE of them say that the Gospel according to Matthew was ORIGINALLY penned in Hebrew. Papias, was being quoted by another historian. We have nothing originally written by Papias. Papias' quote aso goes on to say that Matthew was translated as well as they could. Meaning that MATTHEW wasn't translated word for word. That it would of been the worst of the Gospel renderings. Clement of Alexandria is saying "also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews." How do you get "according to" to mean "written in?" Origen's quote is also disputed. But, FZ you sure do a pretty good job disputing the credibility of the New Testament. Make sure you never take your show on the road and bump into Rabbi Tovia Singer. :lol

Steven Avery

02-17-2019, 08:27 AM

Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned. Now who shall rest.” (FZ had "oshall".) The last part is mangled some, and FZ does not give us his source.

More accurately:

Gospel of the Hebrews
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-throck.html

(Clement, Stromateis 2.9.45.5)
As also it stands written in the Gospel of the Hebrews:
He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest.

Gospel According to the Hebrews
https://archive.org/details/thegospelaccordi00nichuoft/page/n19

Clement op Alexandria writes—
'As Matthias in theTraditions, exhorting us, says,
“Marvel at what is before thee,” supposing this the first step to ulterior knowledge ; just as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is written “He that hath marveled shall reign, and he that hath reigned shall rest.” ’

Yep, this could be part of what was understood as Matthews Gospel in Hebrew (not canonical Matthew.)

So where does FZ add this to his new Versions? :) .

It has a lot more support as being in the Matthew Hebrew than mangling Matthew 28:19.

We have various comments, especially from Jerome, about what was in what was called the Hebrew Matthew. Nobody commented on anything that would affect our Matthew 28:19 verse in the canonical (Greek, Latin, Syriac and versions) Matthew.

Evang.Benincasa

02-17-2019, 09:08 AM

(FZ had "oshall".) The last part is mangled some, and FZ does not give us his source.

More accurately:

Yep, this could be part of what was understood as Matthews Gospel in Hebrew (not canonical Matthew.)

So where does FZ add this to his new Versions? :) .

It has a lot more support as being in the Matthew Hebrw than mangling Matthew 28:19.

What all this has boiled down to is that Matthew had notes in Aramaic? Yet, the Gospel wasn’t meant for just one group. Or one “obscure” language. But the universal language which was known throughout the entire Empire. A Hebrew Only Matthew would’ve done little to spread the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.

Evang.Benincasa

02-17-2019, 09:58 AM

FlamingZword

02-17-2019, 11:55 AM

The argument for a original Hebrew Matthew will gain steam when actual manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew are discovered. None have surfaced in 2000 years.

The shem Tov is one.
some dispute it because it does not have the trinitarian ending,
that is circular reasoning.

Maybe it does not have the trinitarian ending, because it is more original than the latest Greek translations, some people think so.

FlamingZword

02-17-2019, 12:02 PM

What all this has boiled down to is that Matthew had notes in Aramaic? Yet, the Gospel wasn’t meant for just one group. Or one “obscure” language. But the universal language which was known throughout the entire Empire. A Hebrew Only Matthew would’ve done little to spread the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.

OK let us send English bibles to Hispanic countries since English is the universal language which is known throughout the entire modern world.

Matthew was interested in reaching the Jews, he was part of the apostles who ministered to the circumcision, the rest of the gospels could reach the gentiles. you have Mark, Luke and John.

So the Jews who could not read Greek were neglected?

FlamingZword

02-17-2019, 12:04 PM

Joseph Armitage Robinson, Canon and scholar, writes Encyclopedia Biblica (1899) Vol. I Art. "Baptism": on Matthew 28:19 he says: “We have not synoptic parallel at this point; and thus, from a documentary point of view, we must regard this evidence as posterior to that of the Paul’s Epistles and of Acts”

Evang.Benincasa

02-17-2019, 01:25 PM

OK let us send English bibles to Hispanic countries since English is the universal language which is known throughout the entire modern world.

Matter of fact that was discussed in church today. How in Bogotá, Colombia, Mexico City, Mexico, and all over South and Central America American Movies, Popular Music, and television shows are all in English with subtitles. If you want to know what is going on you learn the language. Just like Israel, Judea, Jerusalem. They were under GREEK speaking occupation for over 400 years. Jesus was taken into Alexandria Egypt where the largest concentration of Judeans living outside of Judea dwelt. All Greek speaking. In Jerusalem Greek, as well as Latin and Aramaic would of been spoken. Over 400 years! Greek was spoken throughout the Middle East. Yet, what makes you hit a wall, is that you were under the impression that Jesus and the rest of the first century Judeans were ignorant bedouins off of a Sunday School felt board. Where they hated the Romans as if the Romans were the Nazis of the First Century,. You were led to believe that Hebrew was regarded by the Judeans as a holy language.. That God spoke Hebrew in Heaven. That when you go to heaven that everyone would be speaking in Hebrew. Which isn't the case. in the Bar Kochba uprising the JEWS couldn't read the messages going back and forth because they were written by the zealotes. Zealots who wrote all their messages in the liturgical language of Hebrew. They couldn't read them because the footsoldier (peasants) could only speak Greek. Funny, how you are so into Jewishness that you totally miss that. Shame. You are more in low with Jewishness than Jesusness it seems.

Matthew was interested in reaching the Jews, he was part of the apostles who ministered to the circumcision, the rest of the gospels could reach the gentiles. you have Mark, Luke and John.

Again, over 400 years of Greek speakers. Mexico has 68 national languages, 63 of which are indigenous, including around 350 dialects of those languages.Yet, Spanish is the language which all business, and government speaks. Spanish was brought to Mexico in the 16th century A..D. 6 centuries later and the entire world understands that Spanish is the language of Mexico. The Spanish conquerors came and the language changed. Just like Judea. over 400 years speaking Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. all three languages of her conquering nations. The Gospel of Matthew was to be preached to the whole WORLD which was some backwater in Judea, but the entire Roman empire.An Empire which didn't speak Aramaic, and certainly not the almost extinct language of Hebrew, but Greek, the language of government and commerce.

So the Jews who could not read Greek were neglected?

We don't teach by appealing to the dramatic. We deal with logic concerning the evidence we currently have available. A Hebrew Only Matthew is the fantasy of people who feel in love with being more Jewish than Jesus.

Steven Avery

02-17-2019, 01:40 PM

The shem Tov is one. some dispute it because it does not have the trinitarian ending, that is circular reasoning.That is a very small part of the corruption of the Shem-Tov, that came from a Jewish anti-missionary. My research on this was way before the Matthew 28:19 issues were on the modern radar, and I may be able to find the earlier study showing many of the corruptions. (A fella named James Trimm was the Shem-Tov pusher.) There is in fact solid evidence that Shem-Tov made up this version for anti-missionary, anti-Christian purposes.

FZ has apparently never read up on the ms. and throws out the "trinitarian ending" red herring. The problems are much deeper. I will show one in this post, and then plan on more later. I wonder if FZ is the one who originally tried to combine the anti-Matthew 28:19 position with this absurd concept. Remember, FZ hides virtually all his secondary and teirtiary sources, and plagiarizes freely, so we would have to do some checking to see if Clinton D. Willis or Randall Duane Hughes or anyone else came up with this idea before FZ.

On a simple and clear level:

Here is a simple evidence that I like to emphasize, what I call the internal translations, well explained on another site.

Overall, my approach would be a bit different, because afaik Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut never claimed it was an ancient manuscript, and even indicated that it was his own work (this is from notes years back, that I plan to check.) Thus, the nonsense from this edition is more from confused Christians than Jews. However, the sections I quote below are sound, allowing that I prefer to use the adjective "Satanic" less freely (I do not even use that for "Yahweh" pushers.) Here is the section.

Christian Media Research
James Lloyd
Satanic Translations:
Shem Tov & The Toledoth Yeshu
http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/satanictranslations.html

Shem-Tov ben Shaprut, usually referred to as Shem Tov, is the name of a 14th century Jewish writer who was hostile to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Shem Tov of Tudela, Spain, would have faded into complete obscurity were it not for a specific written work he is thought to have authored. This material, entitled Even Bohan, is a written treatise attacking Christianity.

....

The only reason anyone pays any attention to this work is Even Bohan (the Shem Tov manuscript) contains a corrupted version of the Gospel of Matthew, but it is written in a form of Hebrew. Because early Christian historians noted the tradition that Matthew did indeed distribute his Gospel in Hebrew, certain teachers claim that it is that very Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, that was incorporated into the Shem Tov work. Next, we will go to the internal translations.

the Grecian book of Matthew shows unmistakable internal evidence of its authenticity by the disciple of Jesus.

In an attempt to make the scholarly data more accessible, we note the fact there are numerous statements within the Greek text itself where the narrative tells us the meaning of a Hebrew term. If the writing originated in Hebrew, an ongoing occasional translation would not be necessary. In other words, if Matthew (or the larger body of the New Testament) originated in Aramaic or Hebrew, it would be unnecessary to tell the reader what a particular Hebrew word or phrase means.

It is only because the writing did originate in Greek that an occasional explanation is needed, and such interpretive statements are provided in the Scripture itself. Thus, we see several examples of these ongoing translation notes. For instance, in Matthew's first chapter, the disciple cites the prophecy from Isaiah concerning how a virgin will conceive, and a male child will come forth who is to be called Immanuel. Isaiah wrote:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

When Matthew quotes this prophecy, he writes

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:22,23)

In the Shem Tov version of Matthew, which was supposedly composed in Hebrew, the verse also tells us the name Immanuel, means God with us in Hebrew. Once again, if the book was actually written in Hebrew, there would be no reason to tell the reader the meaning of the name, for the name Immanuel is Hebrew.

It should also be noted that this type of internal evidence also discredits the supposed Aramaic version of the entire New Testament called the Peshitta,

Well done. Thank you Lord Jesus for a clear presentation.
Time and energy permitting, I will do a small series of posts on the Shem-Tov,and also make it accessible on the purebibleforum.

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

Oh, note the irony of FZ trying to attack church leaders like Cyprian, who wrote many superb works, and then basing his whole position on an anti-Christian publication (The Hebrew Matthew was part of the anti-Christian polemic.)

Ironies abound.

At this point, it is virtually impossible for FZ to write consistently and to the scholarship points. Basically, he just recycles uncorrected errors. He does not check the primary sources, so he is in a pickle.

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

Steven Avery

Esaias

02-17-2019, 01:46 PM

That is a very small part of the corruption of the Shem-Tov, that came from a Jewish anti-missionary. My research on this was way before the Matthew 28:19 issues, and I may be able to find the earlier study showing many of the corruptions. There is in fact solid evidence that Shem-Tov made up this version for anti-missionary, anti-Christian purposes.

FZ has apparently never read up on the ms. and throws out the "trinitarian ending" red herring. The problems are much deeper. I will show on in this post, and then plan on more later. I wonder if FZ is the one who originally tried to combine anti-Matthew 29:19 position with this absurd concept. Remember, FZ hides virtually all his sources, and plagiarizes freely, so we would have to do some checking to see if Clinton D. Willis or Randall Duane Hughes or anyone else came up with this idea.

On a simple and clear level:

Here is a simple evidence that I like to emphasize, what I call the internal translations, well explained on another site. My approach would be a bit different, because araik Shem Tov Ibn Shaprut never claimed it was an ancient manuscript, and even indicated that it was his own work (this is from notes years back, that I plan to check.) Thus, the nonsense from this edition is more from confused Christians than Jews.

Time and energy permitting, I will do a small series of posts on the Shem Tob,and also make it accessible on the purebibleforum.

Do you have information on the Peshitta, the Lamsa translation, etc? I know next to nothing about that stream of texts/versions.

Steven Avery

02-17-2019, 02:24 PM

Do you have information on the Peshitta, the Lamsa translation, etc? I know next to nothing about that stream of texts/versions.The short answer is that the Peshitta is a fine early translation from the Greek, that generally supports the pure Bible text. However, it does have some major corruptions, like at 1 Timothy 3:16, where it has "which" was manifest in the flesh. And it is missing the Pericope Adultera, 12 verses.

Lamsa's translation is ok. He actually used some Authorized Version excellence in the process. Lamsa was hanging out with some new agey people (especially Rocco A. Errico) for awhile, who were part of his support network, but afaik that was after the edition, and the version itself does not have new age junk like The Message. It is not anywhere near as good as the Authorized Version, but it is far, far better than the Westcott-Hort corruption versions. (NIV, NAS, etc.)

The problem addressed in the article above is the Aramaic Primacy theory, that tries to claim that the New Testament was (with some possible exceptions in the five books not in the original Peshitta) written in Aramaic. Many of the Aramaic Primacy people are quite sincere, they are looking for a pure Bible, and they have been misled a bit.

Esaias

02-17-2019, 02:38 PM

The short answer is that the Peshitta is a fine early translation from the Greek, that generally supports the pure Bible text. However, it does have some major corruptions, like at 1 Timothy 3:16, where it has "which" was manifest in the flesh.

Lamsa's translation is ok. He actually used some Authorized Version excellence in the process. Lamsa was hanging out with some new agey people (especially Rocco A. Errico) for awhile, who were part of his support network, but afaik that was after the edition, and the version itself does not have new age junk like The Message. It is not anywhere near as good as the Authorized Version, but it is far, far better than the Westcott-Hort corruption versions. (NIV, NAS, etc.)

The problem addressed in the article above is the Aramaic Primacy theory, that tries to claim that the New Testament was (with some possible exceptions in the five books not in the original Peshitta) written in Aramaic. Many of the Aramaic Primacy people are quite sincere, they are looking for a pure Bible, and they have been misled a bit.

Thank you. I will look further into the subject. One thing that has confused me sometimes is the conflation that occurs between "Aramaic" and "Hebrew", I think what some people call "Hebrew" was actually Aramaic or something like that?

I also intend to flesh out my understanding of the connections between the Aramaic and the Syriac versions, so any good reads on the subject you might recommend would be appreciated.

Steven Avery

02-17-2019, 03:04 PM

Thank you. I will look further into the subject. One thing that has confused me sometimes is the conflation that occurs between "Aramaic" and "Hebrew",. Similar to the language difference of say, Spanish and Italian, from what I understand, maybe Aramaic and Hebrew are more apart.. Definitely not so close as Spanish and Portuguese. Different scripts, but you can have Aramaic in a Hebrew script. And they really cannot understand each other in conversation, if there is no background in the other language.

I think what some people call "Hebrew" was actually Aramaic or something like that? The New Testament refers a few times to Hebraisti, which is clearly Hebrew, there are other words like Chaldee or Syriac that would refer to Aramaic. The modern scholars went haywire and tried to make the NT Hebraisti into Aramaic, that has been largely corrected by Ken Penner (a paper at SBL), Douglas Hamp, Alan Millard and a few others. Paul spoke Hebrew to the crowd in Jerusalem. And the Authorized Version got it right, again, throw away any versions that have Aramaic in the NT text.

I also intend to flesh out my understanding of the connections between the Aramaic and the Syriac versions, so any good reads on the subject you might recommend would be appreciated.In a general sense, there are Aramaic dialects within the category of Syriac. Aramaic is generally used for the OT sections in Ezra and Daniel, Syriac for the Peshitta. The dialect of the eastern Syriac has differences from the Judean Aramaic. They could probably converse ok, the script really changed some.

Good reads are hard to find, offhand.

And I do have one friend who was born in the area of Syria where Aramaic is the native tongue, and she is largely based in Israel, also Bethlehem. And would distribute Bibles in Hebrew, Arabic, etc. We laughed about how people would tell her that Aramaic is a dead language, since she learned it from birth. The orthodox (or ultra-orthodox including Chasids) Jews use Aramaic more than Hebrew. Partly for the Talmud related writings, also for conversation, if I remember right. I should check with my Jerusalem friend, I am a bit fuzzy on this at the moment. And I think they use Hebrew as a concession to being in Israel, where it is the common language.

FlamingZword

02-18-2019, 11:31 AM

Scott Pitta

02-18-2019, 03:26 PM

So shall we be live Jefferson and cut out the passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions ??

Textual criticism is about manuscripts, not theology.

Steven Avery

02-18-2019, 05:21 PM

Exploratio Evangelica: A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899) by Percy Gardner, says: “the last verses of Matthew’s Gospel, prescribing baptism into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do not embody the teaching of the Master, or even of his Apostles, at the first.”Percy Gardner (1848-1937)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Gardner

was an archaeologist and he simply followed the "great" (sic, that was from FZ) Adolph Harnack's unbelief about the New Testament.

e.g. His bigger attacks on the NT were elsewhere, he considered the virgin birth a later tack-on.

Exploratio Evangelica: A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899)
https://books.google.com/books?id=K8dJAAAAMAAJ&pg=P238

Professor Harnack writes: “The birth of Jesus of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary certainly had no place in the oldest preaching."

Thus, the goal was to change or make of less significance the Apostle's Creed, since it affirmed the virgin birth.

Gardner referred to the:
"tale of the Virgin-birth and the tale of the Resurrection of the Body, with which the Gospel narrative begins and ends." - p. 234 And he refers to the virgin birth as a:

"somewhat crude attempt to explain the nature the Founder ... to many thoughtful minds, the acceptance of the tenet of the virgin-birth seems to reduce the whole human life of the Founder to a kind of mirage, to paint it with colours “which never were on sea or land," to deprive the Christian of real human relationship to his Master." p. 246, p. 248

Luke is said to have

"accepted a current fable" p. 236

in relating the history of the trip to Bethlehem for the census registration.

Gardmer refers to the "spurious Acts of the Apostles" - p. 243 And there is a leaning towards the mythicism that is around today, trying to paint Christianity as akin to the various pagan religions.

A worthless reference, in terms of Matthew 28:19. Just a Harnack parrot, and the verse is just touched on en passant.

However it can lead to interesting studies about Lucan historicity, the virgin birth and related themes. William Mitchell Ramsay, Charles Gore, George Herbert Box, Vincent Taylor (who also wrote on whether the NT has Jesus called God), plus backwards to William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity.

One major point is from Arthur Custance, the fascinating study on the purpose and need and imperative of the virgin birth, which is largely missed in the historic debate, such as the one of the early 1900s.

Steven

Steven Avery

02-18-2019, 07:28 PM

Conybeare was also involved in virgin birth doubts, and may have been an ebionite, to any extent that he was a believe in Jesus.

One of the other verses he wanted to change would have Joseph as the father of Jesus (Matthew 1:16 corruption).

He wrote an article "Virgo concipiet,’where he views the virgin birth as:

“pagan folkiore.”

Virgin Birth of Christ (1958)
The Theory of Jewish Derivation
By J. Gresham Machen
https://books.google.com/books?id=qG7f9wT1uqIC&pg=PA311

Although, ironically, he may have done some decent scholarship on the Jewish understanding and expectation of the virgin birth.

Conybeare relates this to how:

"the Christian legend arose".

The Academy (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8F08AQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA547

Unbelievers are always looking for ways to change the Bible, it makes them feel they have a certain special justification, if they are able to change God's word they feel they have a type of special anointing, and they are no longer accountable to God and his pure word, they in fact determine his word for him!

More references are scattered here and there. There are some here:

A Critical Examination of the Evidences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth (1908)
By Thomas James Thorburn (1858-1923)

https://books.google.com/books?id=LhcPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA39
As regards Mr. Conybeare’s proposal to regard verses 19 and 20 as the gloss of some dull-minded scribe, which eventually crept into the text, it is sufficient to reply that there is not a shadow of MS. evidence of any kind to support such a theory. This proposal, indeed, is a sample of the loosest type of modern criticism, which is in effect quietly to drop any passage which conflicts with some pre-conceived theory of an author’s meaning as an interpolation in the original text, regardless of whether there is, or is not, any evidence to justify such a proceeding. If we once adopt such a system, it would seem that the words of an author could be made to support almost any theory that may be advanced. ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=LhcPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA52
"Now," says Mr. Conybeare, “ with the disappearance of the T.R. in verse 34 vanishes the last foothold in St. Luke of the tenet of the miraculous birth.”

You can see that the bible-correcting dark spirit was heavy on Conybeare. He would try to change the Bible to match his beliefs, rather than receive the pure Bible and let the scriptures inform doctrine.

The Thornburn explanation, on two other verses, Matthew 1:19-20, is a perfect fit for this thread and the no-evidence theory to try to change Matthew 28:19.

Same perp, different verses.

FlamingZword

02-18-2019, 08:51 PM

So shall we be live Jefferson and cut out the passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions ??

Textual criticism is about manuscripts, not theology.

that is a misconception or absolute statement.
I have not advocated cutting passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions.

Your question is a loaded question similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife?

It is similar to a question using Hitler or a bad person as an example.

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore we should not be vegetarians.
Hitler was a nonsmoker, therefore we should be smokers.
Jefferson was a slave owner, therefore he is a bad person to imitate.

Steven Avery

02-18-2019, 11:08 PM

So shall we be live Jefferson and cut out the passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions ?? Notice this comment above:

As regards Mr. Conybeare’s proposal to regard verses 19 and 20 as the gloss of some dull-minded scribe, which eventually crept into the text, it is sufficient to reply that there is not a shadow of MS. evidence of any kind to support such a theory. This proposal, indeed, is a sample of the loosest type of modern criticism, which is in effect quietly to drop any passage which conflicts with some pre-conceived theory of an author’s meaning as an interpolation in the original text, regardless of whether there is, or is not, any evidence to justify such a proceeding. If we once adopt such a system, it would seem that the words of an author could be made to support almost any theory that may be advanced. ... Ironically, that was about other verses that Conybeare wanted to snip out for other reasons.

Same idea as his Matthew 28:19 theory.

Scott Pitta

02-19-2019, 06:23 AM

FlamingZword

02-19-2019, 09:19 PM

It is nearly impossible to prove why manuscript copyists edited manuscripts. Arguing for manuscript editing, due to theological reasons, without any manuscript evidence for support, is creative writing, or fiction.

We have plenty of evidence, maybe not the evidence that you might want to accept, but evidence definitively there is.

I have barely begun to present my evidence, there is much more evidence, a whole lot more, but I am giving the evidence a little morsel at a time, so people will not choke at the large amount there is.

FlamingZword

02-19-2019, 09:22 PM

The Historical New Testament (1901) by Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis James Moffatt, states: “So, besides Strauss, Hilgenfeld, and Havet (iv. p. 280), Keim, who regards it [Mat 28:19]…(p. 647) as a wandering passage, containing a baptismal formula, which originated in the first half of the second century.”
“The use of the baptismal formula belongs to an age subsequent to that of the apostles, who employed the simple phrase of baptism into the name of Jesus...Had this phrase been in existence and use, it is incredible that some trace of it should not have survived; whereas the earliest reference to it, outside of this passage, is in Clem. Rom. and the Didache…” (p. 648).

Esaias

02-19-2019, 10:31 PM

We have plenty of evidence, maybe not the evidence that you might want to accept, but evidence definitively there is.

I have barely begun to present my evidence, there is much more evidence, a whole lot more, but I am giving the evidence a little morsel at a time, so people will not choke at the large amount there is.

None of what you have posted is evidence, though. You are just posting 19th and 20th century people's opinions on how the apostolic church baptized, along with citations from people who don't even believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Not one shred of evidence concerning THE TEXT OF MATTHEW.

Steven Avery

02-19-2019, 10:40 PM

The Historical New Testament (1901) by Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis James Moffatt, ).James Moffat (1870-1944)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moffatt

The Historical New Testament (1901)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uBkVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA647

Moffat mentions about 20 different writers, who most all have different views on what they want to chop out, some 3 verses, some five, all sorts of contradictions. They generally work with the error of late dating and not understanding Bible harmony. It is a great example of the perils of the pseudo-scholarship we see from the liberals and unbelievers.

Moffat's New Testament properly has the full words of Matthew 28:19:

The Historical New Testament: Being the Literature of the New Testament Arranged in the Order of Its Literary Growth and According to the Dates of the Documents (1901)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uBkVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA343
And Jesus came and talked to them, saying,
“All authority has been given to me in heaven and upon earth ;
Go then and make disciples of all the nations,
Baptize them into the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit,
Teach them to observe all that ever I commanded you.
And lo, I myself am with you all the days until the close of the age!”

The New Testament: A New Translation (1915)
https://archive.org/details/thenewtestament00unknuoft/page/n55
Then Jesus came forward to them and said, “Full authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth; go and make disciples of all nations, baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and teach them to obey all the commands I have laid on you. And I will be with you all the time, to the very end of the world.”

The AV is superior, however at least there is no major mangling.

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

Had this phrase been in existence and use, it is incredible that some trace of it should not have survived; whereas the earliest reference to it, outside of this passage, is in Clem. Rom. and the Didache…” (p. 648). This was a puzzling quote. Clement of Rome and the Didache are considered to be two of the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament.

And within the New Testament, Matthew 28:19 and the verses in Acts form a beautiful doctrinal harmony.

Steven Avery

02-20-2019, 03:24 AM

The quote from FZ is wrong, doctored in some physically small but important ways, to hide the fact that the attacks referenced by Moffat from others are on five verses.

He misquotes the start of the sentence, begins with "So,"the capital "S" is doctored, because he wants to omit

"28 16-20 A later appendix"

since that will tell the reader that the context is an attack on the full section of five verse.

And the sentence does not end with "second century", it says,

"second century, century (vi. pp. 368-373, v. pp. 338,339), but recapitulating some genuine commands of Jesus."

FZ leaves this out so the reader does not realize that Keim is attacking the whole section.

=========

The next quote, although basically true, is similarly designed to hide the context, which you can read in the url above, and again is attacking the whole section. Plus I pointed out above a puzzle about the "earliest reference" aspect.

Scott Pitta

02-20-2019, 04:21 AM

Steven Avery

02-20-2019, 05:09 PM

Eldon Epp explored motive in his Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. Juan Hernandez Jr explored the same issue in his Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse. I have read and reread the above titles, but I have not read Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri by James Royse. Are you familiar with these titles ? Proving changes to the text are do to theology and not to other factors is nearly impossible.Epp's book is available in Preview mode
https://books.google.com/books?id=_X4FMng91KcC

It has not really been on my radar.

The Hernandez book is on Preview also:
https://books.google.com/books?id=8C1YlHaGpooC

And I made some notes on it, but they mostly relate to the fact of Sinaiticus being an 1800s production.

The Royse book is significant, because it is one of a few studies that confirm the simple truth that the lectio brevior nonsense of textual criticism is really wrong. However, the modern textual critics are generally wrong, so that is not a big surprise. Some of the good stuff is around here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA729

Scott Pitta

02-20-2019, 05:33 PM

Once I wrap up the Harry Morse project, I will resume research in NT TC.

FlamingZword

02-20-2019, 08:01 PM

None of what you have posted is evidence, though. You are just posting 19th and 20th century people's opinions on how the apostolic church baptized, along with citations from people who don't even believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Not one shred of evidence concerning THE TEXT OF MATTHEW.

you are kind of impatient, aren't you?

FlamingZword

02-20-2019, 08:07 PM

Evang.Benincasa

02-20-2019, 09:07 PM

you are kind of impatient, aren't you?

He isn't impatient. 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? You aren't a Hebrew or Aramaic scholar, you sure aren't a Greek scholar. So, that would lead everyone to believe that what you are trying to hand us is just opinions on what you feel should be written in the Bible. This is all about truth correct? But you aren't giving us that, but mere opinions. Impatient? No, just a little head shaking that you are so blind about what you are getting yourself into. Sorry.

Evang.Benincasa

02-20-2019, 09:12 PM

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?

Steven Avery

02-20-2019, 10:10 PM

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.

Atonement and Personality (originally 1901)
Robert Campbell Morgan
https://archive.org/details/atonementpersona00mobeuoft/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.

"... 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:

"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/atonementchristi00rashuoft/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.

Steven Avery

02-20-2019, 10:17 PM

Emphasis added:

... 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.

Evang.Benincasa

02-21-2019, 08:44 AM

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.

FlamingZword

02-21-2019, 10:52 PM

Begun? Looks like the only thing you have proven is that you believe that Matthew isn’t authentic.

Nope, have never said nor do I believe that Matthew isn't authentic. Do not write or assume things I have never said. Remember the commandment you shall not raise any false witness.

If I truly believed that Matthew isn't authentic, then I would simply not use it.

You are absolutely right, I have done professional translation before so I do understand the complexity of translation.

If I was a translator, translating a text from Hebrew to Greek and I saw the text in Matthew 28:19 and I understood that Jesus was the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, then I would feel that this translation was a correct translation, which in a way it is. For Jesus is indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but my translation would be more of paraphrase than an authentic translation.

Some may say that this translation of the Hebrew into Greek is actually more descriptive and therefor more accurate, but I disagree.
Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The translator kind of took liberties in his translation by translating his own doctrinal bias or beliefs, instead of striving for textual accuracy.

Is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from Hebrew to Greek acceptable, yes it is an acceptable translation, but it is not textually accurate, there is a difference and those who do no understand this difference might be confused about it, so at the risk of being redundant, let me say it again.

Is Matthew 28:19 translation acceptable, yes it is.
Is Matthew 28:19 translation accurate, no it is not.

FlamingZword

02-21-2019, 10:59 PM

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?

Unlike Thomas Jefferson, I do not go by "feelings" I go by evidence.

I am presenting my evidence a little at a time so people have the time to digest it and understand what I am say.

Actually I use all bible translations, when studying a verse I often run the whole gamut of translations in https://www.biblegateway.com/ and also https://biblehub.com

FlamingZword

02-21-2019, 11:00 PM

Scott Pitta

02-22-2019, 12:20 AM

Until we have a Hebrew Matthew to compare to a translated Greek Matthew, we cannot compare the 2 to determine the value or features of the translation quality.

Evang.Benincasa

02-22-2019, 01:50 AM

Nope, have never said nor do I believe that Matthew isn't authentic. Do not write or assume things I have never said. Remember the commandment you shall not raise any false witness.

If I truly believed that Matthew isn't authentic, then I would simply not use it.

You are absolutely right, I have done professional translation before so I do understand the complexity of translation.

If I was a translator, translating a text from Hebrew to Greek and I saw the text in Matthew 28:19 and I understood that Jesus was the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, then I would feel that this translation was a correct translation, which in a way it is. For Jesus is indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but my translation would be more of paraphrase than an authentic translation.

Some may say that this translation of the Hebrew into Greek is actually more descriptive and therefor more accurate, but I disagree.
Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The translator kind of took liberties in his translation by translating his own doctrinal bias or beliefs, instead of striving for textual accuracy.

Is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from Hebrew to Greek acceptable, yes it is an acceptable translation, but it is not textually accurate, there is a difference and those who do no understand this difference might be confused about it, so at the risk of being redundant, let me say it again.

Is Matthew 28:19 translation acceptable, yes it is.
Is Matthew 28:19 translation accurate, no it is not.

You need to read and digest your own writing. Matthew 28:19 is spurious but the rest of the document has not been tampered with? How do you know? You already accused the document of a falsehood. Why CAN’T there be others. Hebrew to Greek? Explain how there are verses that make no sense in Hebrew. By saying that one portion of Matthew is inaccurate it is then not authentic. To say it is a translation of a LOST translation brings also even more problems which you refuse to deal with.

Evang.Benincasa

02-22-2019, 02:04 AM

Unlike Thomas Jefferson, I do not go by "feelings" I go by evidence.

I am presenting my evidence a little at a time so people have the time to digest it and understand what I am say.

Actually I use all bible translations, when studying a verse I often run the whole gamut of translations in https://www.biblegateway.com/ and also https://biblehub.com

Feelings???? My lands, of course you are going by your own personal feelings. You have proven that to use by quoting dead theologians who felt that Matthew 28:19 wasn’t part of the text. FZ, all you have to go by is your feelings generated by your own personal misunderstanding of the verse. You see it as a Trinitarian verse, when it is actually a One God verse if ever there was one. You take from other ENGLISH translations for your own translation! That is laughable. That isn’t translation. That isn’t even examining the text. Can you translate Hebrew into Greek? Can you translate Greek into Hebrew? Do you understand the differences the languages had in the first century A.D.? Do you understand how words were used in the first century A.D.? Are you just armed with a Strongs, ESV, and quotes of the opinions of theologians? That isn’t very scholarly. Or does it qualify as Biblical translation. Even the Syriac translation of the New Testament is from Greek. But can you tell me if rope goes through the eye of a needle, or does a camel?

Evang.Benincasa

02-22-2019, 02:07 AM

Until we have a Hebrew Matthew to compare to a translated Greek Matthew, we cannot compare the 2 to determine the value or features of the translation quality.

I say Amen, and I would guess that even Harry Morse would say Amen.

Steven Avery

02-22-2019, 06:25 AM

The Apostles’ Creed (1902) by theologian Arthur Cushman McGiffert, pp. 178-186. McGiffert is deeply skeptical of the baptismal formula and attempts to explain how the phrase in Matthew 28:19 arose and displaced the shorter original version.Arthur Chushman McGiffert (1861-1933)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Cushman_McGiffert

Arthur Cushman McGiffert (Presbyterian, United States, 1900)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy_in_the_modern_era#Arthur_Cushman_ McGiffert_(Presbyterian,_United_States,_1900)

a direct onslaught on the very basis of Reformed and, indeed, of the whole Protestant theology... He worked on the basic assumption that historical change makes all religious teaching relative and there is no continuing "essence" of Christian history.

Mcgiffert is skeptical of the virgin birth as an added-on story.

. The belief in the virgin birth, though certainly not common in the earliest days, had become widespread before the end of the first century, as is shown by the gospels of Matthew and Luke and by the epistles of Ignatius, and was a part of the general faith of the church before the Old Roman Symbol was framed.. p. 17, also p. 34

When it comes to the baptism he conjectures a replacement for the words of Matthew from Jesus:

I have said that the creed is an enlargement of the baptismal formula, and it is commonly, I may say universally assumed that it is an enlargement of the formula found in Matt, xxviii. 19: "Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But I think it can be shown, though I cannot stop to discuss the matter here, that the formula upon which it is based was rather "Into the name of God and of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit" a formula which, as I think it can also be shown, is older than the triune formula of Matthew. It is found in 2 Cor. xiii. 13 as a formula of benediction, and its use in Rome in the middle of the second century in connection with baptism is testified to by Justin Martyr, who throws more light than any other father upon the conditions existing in Rome just before the time when the creed originated.1 p. 19

More meanderings are in Chapter VI, p. 175-186.

The Apostles' Creed: Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation (1902)
By Arthur Cushman McGiffert
The Old Roman Symbol and the Baptism Forumula
https://books.google.com/books?id=avaJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA175

Steven Avery

02-22-2019, 06:47 AM

Much of this post is incomprehensible, however one point can be made, ignoring the confusing reference to translating to Hebrew.

Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What a wonderful teaching opportunity and tool.

When I was taught this truth, it was an amazing confirmation and revelation. We went carefully over every Acts baptism verse and saw the harmony with the words in Matthew. Also we studied the references in the Epistles, and appreciated every connected Bible verse.

The harmony of the Bible is there knit together to help us learn, and discern our hearts.

The mangling of Matthew 28:19 is a worthless enterprise.

Esaias

02-22-2019, 07:01 AM

Is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from Hebrew to Greek acceptable, yes it is an acceptable translation, but it is not textually accurate, there is a difference and those who do no understand this difference might be confused about it,

You say it is not textually accurate, yet all the texts and manuscripts have it, ZERO manuscripts have your proposed alternative readings.

Therefore it is clear YOU are the one who does not "understand the difference".

Steven Avery

02-22-2019, 08:48 PM

You say it is not textually accurate, yet all the texts and manuscripts have it, ZERO manuscripts have your proposed alternative readings. Therefore it is clear YOU are the one who does not "understand the difference". Good catch.

And, if you read carefully, none of these five sections are accurate and sensible.

If I was a translator, translating a text from Hebrew to Greek and I saw the text in Matthew 28:19 and I understood that Jesus was the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, then I would feel that this translation was a correct translation, which in a way it is. For Jesus is indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but my translation would be more of paraphrase than an authentic translation.

Some may say that this translation of the Hebrew into Greek is actually more descriptive and therefor more accurate, but I disagree.
Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The translator kind of took liberties in his translation by translating his own doctrinal bias or beliefs, instead of striving for textual accuracy.

Is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from Hebrew to Greek acceptable, yes it is an acceptable translation, but it is not textually accurate, there is a difference and those who do no understand this difference might be confused about it, so at the risk of being redundant, let me say it again.

Is Matthew 28:19 translation acceptable, yes it is.
Is Matthew 28:19 translation accurate, no it is not.

FlamingZword

02-22-2019, 09:37 PM

You need to read and digest your own writing. Matthew 28:19 is spurious but the rest of the document has not been tampered with? How do you know? You already accused the document of a falsehood. Why CAN’T there be others. Hebrew to Greek? Explain how there are verses that make no sense in Hebrew. By saying that one portion of Matthew is inaccurate it is then not authentic. To say it is a translation of a LOST translation brings also even more problems which you refuse to deal with.

If other parts of Matthew have been tampered with, I have no idea, nor does it concerns me at this point. If others raise some issues with other texts, I will leave that for them to demonstrate their evidence for such beliefs.

However this particular text does interest me, because there is plenty of evidence that it was tampered with in the translation from Hebrew into Greek.

Steven Avery

02-22-2019, 09:51 PM

If other parts of Matthew have been tampered with, I have no idea, nor does it concerns me at this point. If others raise some issues with other texts, I will leave that for them to demonstrate their evidence for such beliefs. You quote many people who want to chop up three to five verses at the end of Matthew, and the last 12 verses of Mark, to start. Do you accept their arguments?

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

FlamingZword

02-22-2019, 10:02 PM

Feelings???? My lands, of course you are going by your own personal feelings. You have proven that to use by quoting dead theologians who felt that Matthew 28:19 wasn’t part of the text. FZ, all you have to go by is your feelings generated by your own personal misunderstanding of the verse. You see it as a Trinitarian verse, when it is actually a One God verse if ever there was one.

Feelings?? I have already deny such feelings, but you simply refused to believe me. If you want to believe that about my feelings go ahead, nothing is stopping you, but that is your own personal feelings about my feelings. kind of amazing that you can feel my feelings.

about Matthew 28:19 being a Trinitarian verse, that is baloney, not even in the traditional phrase is it Trinitarian.

For years and years since 1983 and even now, I still use the traditional text to teach baptism in the name of Jesus and the Oneness of God. I think all that bacon you have eaten has gone to your head. easy on that bacon brother.

I just don't believe that text was accurately translated from Hebrew into Greek.

FlamingZword

02-22-2019, 10:06 PM

You say it is not textually accurate, yet all the texts and manuscripts have it, ZERO manuscripts have your proposed alternative readings.

Therefore it is clear YOU are the one who does not "understand the difference".

all the manuscripts have it because they simply copied it down.

So you are the judge of what I do understand?

FlamingZword

02-22-2019, 10:09 PM

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian, calls Matthew 28:19 spurious and says: “It would be superfluous to show all over again that the direct institution of baptism through Jesus, as it is recounted in Mt 28, is historically untenable.” In this book Doctor Heitmüller argues from linguistics that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt and that the only linguistic text that would be correct is “in the name of Jesus.”

Scott Pitta

02-22-2019, 11:05 PM

Esaias

02-22-2019, 11:20 PM

all the manuscripts have it because they simply copied it down.

So you are the judge of what I do understand?

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.

Steven Avery

02-23-2019, 04:22 AM

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian, This is the second time you have placed this errant section on this thread.

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian ... And I answered with two detailed contiguous posts here:

And I doubt that you ever looked at this work, and once again it looks like plagiarism. (continues) ... It does look like Heitmüller is acknowledging power in the name of Jesus! :) And that water baptism in Jesus name is a major element.

Steven Avery

02-23-2019, 04:38 AM

about Matthew 28:19 being a Trinitarian verse, that is baloney, not even in the traditional phrase is it Trinitarian. And I agree.
And thus the thread title is wrong, and many of your posts.

For years and years since 1983 and even now, I still use the traditional text to teach baptism in the name of Jesus and the Oneness of God Quite an admission.

Evang.Benincasa

02-23-2019, 06:29 AM

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 ??

Very good point :thumbsup

Harry Morse would be proud. :)

Evang.Benincasa

02-23-2019, 06:43 AM

And I agree.
And thus the thread title is wrong, and many of your posts.

Quite an admission.

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

Evang.Benincasa

02-23-2019, 07:04 AM

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkxBPb75nUg&ab_channel=JorgeTorres-LyricsChannel

Steven Avery

02-23-2019, 07:07 AM

FZ's argument is dying a slow and painful death.True. However, since this is about the fifth thread on AFF, it has been very helpful as a learning experience.

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?True, he has mixed up the different arguments. Plus, he continually quotes people who want to snip out multiple verses from the ending of Matthew. He ignores that element of their presentation, hiding it from the readers.

Because FZ, knows that the argument against the traditional Matthew 28:19 is futile, and lacks good strong evidence. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a sincerely held belief that the Matthew words should be different. However, that belief is intermingled with the financial element of selling books, and the personal affirmation of his beliefs, the i.e. the difficulty to change a view he has held for many years.

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 FZ is having difficulty tailoring his message for his audience :) .

Evang.Benincasa

02-23-2019, 11:21 AM

True. However, since this is about the fifth thread on AFF, it has been very helpful as a learning experience.

Yes, I totally agree. But as I said originally, the original topic that FZ was trying to prove is dying on the vine. What I see is that mostly this target audience are those who are wanting to be Judaized in their Christianity. They are shaloamers, Yeshuites, Yahwists who are more focused on a Medieval Rabbinical experience, or more like an MGM Moses type of Churchness. Where all sides of Judaism glances over at and winces.

True, he has mixed up the different arguments. Plus, he continually quotes people who want to snip out multiple verses from the ending of Matthew. He ignores that element of their presentation, hiding it from the readers.

Yes, this leads the reader to believe that he also shares those views. So, when I point out to FZ that he has the Jefferson approach, he denies. Yet, that is confusing and ends up impeaching the witnesses he is offering to us.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a sincerely held belief that the Matthew words should be different.

While being gracious, still doesn't negate that FZ is having a monumental proving the original thought of the thread. He knows it.

However, that belief is intermingled with the financial element of selling books, and the personal affirmation of his beliefs, the i.e. the difficulty to change a view he has held for many years.

I agree with the latter may be in all of us. It takes great personal strength to see inwardly and shake ourselves awake. FZ is a pretty smart sincere brother, and I pray that we all come to the knowledge of truth.

FZ is having difficulty tailoring his message for his audience :) .

That is quite obvious. ;)

FlamingZword

02-23-2019, 03:13 PM

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

Please in your responses, avoid citing that guy Steven Avery, he is not a part of our discussions, I do not read his negative comments and I am not interested in reading them from a second source either.

If you keep on citing that guy I might just not engage in any further honest positive discussions here.

FlamingZword

02-23-2019, 03:18 PM

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

02-23-2019, 03:22 PM

FlamingZword

02-23-2019, 03:48 PM

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

02-23-2019, 03:52 PM

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

02-23-2019, 04:03 PM

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

02-23-2019, 05:09 PM

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

02-23-2019, 05:25 PM

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

02-23-2019, 07:08 PM

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

FZ, how do you plead?

votivesoul

02-23-2019, 07:14 PM

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

02-23-2019, 07:15 PM

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.

Evang.Benincasa

02-23-2019, 07:17 PM

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.

:highfive

Steven Avery

02-23-2019, 11:36 PM

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.True.

And this is fairly common with the heavenly witnesses. Since the verse dropped out of the Greek line early, a common theory is that the oneness (Sabellian) nature of the verse was a bit discomfiting in the Ante-Nicene era.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

This came up even in the 1600s, in a report by Christopher Sand with the Sabellian interpolation element. Edward Freer Hills wrote cogently on the question in the 20th century. And I believe it was a part of the textual question in the Latin after the time of Peter Abelard, involving Thomas Aquinas and the Lateran Council. The "three are one" phrase was a controversy. And I may prepare a small article on the history.

Here is what I put together earlier.

scholars theorizing that the Sabellian controversies contributed to the Greek ms line drop
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?671-scholars-theorizing-that-the-Sabellian-controversies-contributed-to-the-Greek-ms-line-drop

Steven Avery

02-24-2019, 05:37 AM

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)The translation of the title looks like puter mangle and my conjecture on the (G) is that it was brought over from a secondary or tertiary source. We are given no idea as to who is Gerd Imhoff, or what page is the German text, or the url for the book. At least the translation of the actual section from the Gospel harmony looks properly done.

Gustav Freytag (1816-1895)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Freytag

is known for his writing on dramatic structure, with an analysis of ancient Greek and Shakespearean drama, with a theory involving the "tragic pyramid."

Die Symphonie der Evangelien. Eine Zusammenstellung der ächten Bestandtheile (1863)
Gustav Adolph Freytag
https://books.google.com/books?id=6klVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA166
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011635928

There is a discussion of Matthew 28:19 on p. 166, comparing it with Mark 16:15-17. And possibly p. 133 or 209. Presumably the actual translated text can be found, if the reference is accurate.

A Gospel harmony is always drawing from the four gospels, so there is no surprise whenever a phrase from one gospel is omitted. (Scholastically, this is an essentially irrelevant reference.)

It is possible that FZ is working with material from Grzegorz Kaszyński, who mentions this reference (however, not all the detail or the translator) in a 2017 Polish work that is online.

Krótki logion Mateusza 28:19,20 w hebrajskiej Ewangelii Mateusza z dzieła Szem-Toba (2017)
Grzegorz Kaszyński
https://synopsa.pl/krotki-logion-mateusza-281920-hebrajskiej-wersji-ewangelii-dziela-szem-toba/
"1863: Die Symphonie der Evangelien eine Zusammenstellung der ächten Bestandtheile, (harmonia 4 Ewangelii), Gustav Adolph Freytag"

Interestingly, Grzegorz has a similar work listing all the versions and references that do not have John 1:1 as "the Word was God." This argument is usually associated with the JWs.

106 Translations Not Rendering Theos En Ho Logos As “the Word Was God”
https://archive.org/details/GrzegorzKaszyski--106TranslationsNotRenderingTheosNnHoLogosAstheWord WasGod

This next was translated from Spanish to English by Jorge Cárdenas.

Ministerios Siega Mundial Evangelista Jorge Cárdenas. Revisión y cambios editoriales Grzegorz Kaszyński
https://docplayer.es/14644605-Ministerios-siega-mundial-evangelista-jorge-cardenas-revision-y-cambios-editoriales-grzegorz-kaszynski.html

Another one:

MATTHEW 28:19,20
62 VERSIONS WITH THE SHORTER ENDING
http://truthandlightministries.org/Mt28with62versionswiththeshorter-ending.pdf

One writer who connects his Gospel harmony with his other writings is Priscilla Porthen in Hope in the Social Context of the Epistle to the Romans (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjtpKOJt9TgAhVHMd8KHcPmCAUQFjAAegQIABAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchspace.ukzn.ac.za%2Fxmlui% 2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10413%2F6932%2FPorthen_Pris cilla_2000.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&usg=AOvVaw1fiSfsagG7CIXtbfDhURub) on p. 45 and the summary on p. 215, emphasizing the "tragic pyramid" theory. Since there is so little about this Gospel harmony written, that paper helped connect the author as the dramatic structure Gustav Freytag. He rarely if ever has the middle name Adolph or initial A given with his books or bio, except for the Gospel harmony. Thus the name Gustav Adolph Freytag will generally only show the one book.

And it should be confirmed that they really are the same person, perhaps there is something about literary structure in the Gospel harmony, and presumably Priscilla Porthen did some checking. For now, I would leave open the possibility that they are different individuals, I sent an email over to Larry L. Ping, who has written on Gustav Freytag.

Evang.Benincasa

02-24-2019, 06:50 AM

FZ, do you know what is really important about the German theologians? Is that the were heavily opinionated. While that may not be a bad thing at times, these guys had some wild ideas. There was German theologians who were scholars in Christianity. Yet, with their Christian studies they were also scholars of "religions." Surprisingly for us, Hinduism and Judaism. Two religions which are pretty close to each other. Hinduism and Talmudic Judaism. The German scholars tended to mix these up a little while commenting on what they saw within the scripture. Like I said in another thread, commentators borrowed from the teachings of the Rabbis to explain the New Testament. Yet, that must be taken with more than just a grain of salt. Because the Rabbis hate Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Gospel, and most of all the Apostle Paul. In their Babylonian Talmud there is no solace offered the Christian. Therefore anything gleaned from their "wisdom" isn't formulated to move us forward, but take us backward. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, so watch out for the leaven of the pharisees and the scribes. You propose that the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19 is incorrect, spurious, interpolation by Greek Trinitarian scribes. Injecting their doctrine while wringing their hands. Yet, consider this, could it be you being deceived and manipulated into chopping up our New Treatment? Doing the job of the Talmudic Rabbi? Rabbi Tovia Singer would be as pleased as Punch, to see this discussion. All the while cheering you on forward ho. FZ, please consider what you are doing here, because it cannot logically stop with matthew 28:19. There are theologians and scholars who didn't just want to change one verse. But many verses and chapters. Textual criticism is a wild web, and sadly when you are done, you will find yourself strangled in that web. I care about you my brother, please consider your direction. :)

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:22 AM

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 ??

Dear Scott, your behavior is like that of The Apostle Thomas.

Except I shall see in in my hands the manuscripts, and put my finger into the print of the letters, and thrust my hand into its pages, I will not believe.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:30 AM

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:35 AM

You aren't in a rush because you're playing 3 Card Monte and simply put don't have the goods on this issue.

I am sure you have plenty of food in your house, would you feed all that food to your child in one meal?

One meal at a time, so you will not choke and have time to digest it.
Do you even read the posts and masticate them or you simply look at them and like a precocious brat simply throw them into the ground.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:45 AM

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. :)

OK let me put to rest one of your issues, the rest I will deal with them later.

Does a camel go through the eye of a needle, or does a rope go through the eye of a needle?

The answer to that is that since they are similar and do not affect our salvation, then it could be either and it would not make a bit of difference.
I consider that saying as just a proverb which means it is pretty difficult.

Are you lost if you think it is a rope? are you from the Camelist school of theology?
Are you lost if you think it is a camel? are you from the Ropeist school of theology?

However the issue of baptism is quite relevant for the Bible clearly states in many places that there is salvation in no other name but in the name of Jesus.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:51 AM

FZ, how do you plead?

Dear Votivesoul, I have a lot of respect from you, but I will simply refuse to answer this, because you are citing a person who is totally negative and which I have no dealings with, I have no interest in anything this person says.

So no I will not answer, and remember that in a court of law, a refusal to answer can not be taken as a no or as a yes.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:54 AM

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.

I am already changing the world, one mind at a time, plenty of people are slowly waking up to the realization that Mat 28:19 should say "in my name"

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 10:04 AM

Steven Avery

02-24-2019, 10:47 AM

the realization that Mat 28:19 should say "in my name"An interesting point that FZ tries to keep in the background is that this is NOT in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew.

This is direct from the 1995 2nd edition. p. 151

Hebrew Gospel of MATTHEW by George Howard - Part One.pdf https://www.academia.edu/32013676/Hebrew_Gospel_of_MATTHEW_by_George_Howard_-_Part_One.pdf

18 Jesus drew near to them and said to them:
To me has been given all power in heaven and earth
19 Go
20 and (teach) them to carry out all the things
which I have commanded you forever.

So there is no Bible ms. support for his rendering in any language at all.

Esaias

02-24-2019, 11:48 AM

I am sure you have plenty of food in your house, would you feed all that food to your child in one meal?

One meal at a time, so you will not choke and have time to digest it.
Do you even read the posts and masticate them or you simply look at them and like a precocious brat simply throw them into the ground.

Admit it, there is no evidence for your proposed change. I've read your posts. You misquote, misattributed, and misrepresent just about every one of them. How hard is this to understand? Just point us to the MANUSCRIPTS THAT SAY WHAT YOU SAY.

Esaias

02-24-2019, 11:49 AM

So there is no Bible ms. support for his rendering in any language at all.

Exactly. Case closed.

Steven Avery

02-24-2019, 01:04 PM

FZ, how do you plead?FZ tried to plead the fifth amendment, that if he spoke he might intend to incriminate himself.

... I will simply refuse to answer this, because you are citing a person who is totally negative and which I have no dealings with, I have no interest in anything this person says. So no I will not answer, and remember that in a court of law, a refusal to answer can not be taken as a no or as a yes.

In a civil case, unlike a criminal case, in the USA and most states, you are totally allowed to make an "adverse inference" when someone pleads the fifth. Even more so in a simple case of ethics and integrity, as here, where the only damage would be a hit to the scholarship reputation. More info on the court aspect here:

What happens if you take the Fifth in a civil case?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/28/what-happens-if-you-take-the-fifth-in-a-civil-case/

And this is just a discussion forum, no lawsuits are involved, it is simply a question of ethics and integrity.

Silence, and no defense, and no response, strongly indicates guilt when such clear evidence has been presented.

And if you look closely at the many examples given in this thread, you will see "guilty as charged" for the shoddy scholarship, quote doctoring, lack of proper sourcing, use of secondary and terrtiary sources when the primary is available, and plagiarism. Basically his only defense is that he inherited some of the deceptive work from Clinton D. Willis and others. See the Tim Hegg paper on the Clinton Willis manipulations, also see the jfrog post here on a former thread, writing to FZ. Nothing has received any response, afawk.

FZ is so brazen in this scholastic dishonesty that he does not even make corrections to false information, even when it has been presented and the primary source information is readily available.

As for my being "negative", that is largely a result of spending time dissecting the shoddy scholarship.

And I have tried to turn it to good by learning more about the scholars and views, even those German liberals. I am more used to studying the Believing believing scholars of the 1700s and many in the1800s, so this has been a change of pace. My experience on this came largely out of trying to get a good sense of why the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses verse was challenged, and how the pure Bible verse was defended.

Steven

Evang.Benincasa

02-24-2019, 01:07 PM

Well today there any many ministers who study other religions besides Christianity, yet they still teach baptism in the name of Jesus.

I myself have studied some other religions too, a little bit of Mormonism (early on my christian walk, I was kind of favorable to them, until I learned more of the Bible), I have also studied some of Jehovah's witnesses theology and even some of Islam.

FZ, you are missing the point I’m trying to make. With the German theologians, they blended some things together. Hindu thought in Christian thought. Babylonian Talmudic Judaism understanding into the New Testament. Some German scholars actually believed Jesus followed Talmud, and taught Talmud.
Therefore believing some verses that contradicted Talmud to be spurious.

votivesoul

02-24-2019, 02:13 PM

Dear Votivesoul, I have a lot of respect from you, but I will simply refuse to answer this, because you are citing a person who is totally negative and which I have no dealings with, I have no interest in anything this person says.

So no I will not answer, and remember that in a court of law, a refusal to answer can not be taken as a no or as a yes.

FZ, although I posted my question under my own screen name, and not under the Admin screen name, the fact is, you are being accused openly of breaking some very important forum rules. A lot of evidence has been presented which strongly supports that accusation.

To simply ignore it is your choice, but it's important to keep your name unsullied from such accusations. If you have taken these quotes from other writers, just say so, and be sure to site those writers next time, whenever necessary to do so.

And while I appreciate your respect for me, if you are plagiarizing, it demonstrates a lack of respect on your part.

So, please just answer, not to Steve, but for me: are you quoting from but not citing other writers?

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:47 PM

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.

Well I worked for the Los Angeles District Attorney for a while, doing research so I am kind of familiar with gathering evidence.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 09:52 PM

Admit it, there is no evidence for your proposed change. I've read your posts. You misquote, misattributed, and misrepresent just about every one of them. How hard is this to understand? Just point us to the MANUSCRIPTS THAT SAY WHAT YOU SAY.

As a person who actually worked for a District attorney, I do understand that it is hard to win a murder case where the perpetrator destroys the body, which serves as evidence of the deed done, and the case must be won without the body present, but some prosecutors have done it. The state of Iowa has a database of 469 "no body" murder trials. So yes a trial can he conducted without the body.

and yes the lack of a Greek manuscript does not invalidate this case at all.
Of course you refuse to accept the Shem Tob as a valid manuscript, which is kind of self-serving on your part, but of course there are some who disagree with your assessment.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 10:02 PM

FZ, although I posted my question under my own screen name, and not under the Admin screen name, the fact is, you are being accused openly of breaking some very important forum rules. A lot of evidence has been presented which strongly supports that accusation.

To simply ignore it is your choice, but it's important to keep your name unsullied from such accusations. If you have taken these quotes from other writers, just say so, and be sure to site those writers next time, whenever necessary to do so.

And while I appreciate your respect for me, if you are plagiarizing, it demonstrates a lack of respect on your part.

So, please just answer, not to Steve, but for me: are you quoting from but not citing other writers?

It is self-evident that I am quoting from books written by others, the post themselves give the name of the books, the authors, the date and even the page numbers. that is perfectly legitimate in any arguments.
so if anyone has accused me of anything, they have raised false accusations, which breaks the law of God, "you shall not raise a false witness."

Go back to all my posts and read that I give the full data of where I got my information and you will see that perhaps it is someone else who is raising false accusations.
I am used to false accusations from trinitarians, but I am surprised that someone who claims to be oneness would sink so low.

P.S. Please keep the name of that negative individual out of our discussions, I totally ignore anything that he says, and do not bother to read his posts, so I am not surprised he does not like that.

Steven Avery

02-24-2019, 10:02 PM

Of course you refuse to accept the Shem Tob as a valid manuscript, which is kind of self-serving on your part, but of course there are some who disagree with your assessment. Even putting aside the question of Shem Tov producing the ms, and the huge amount of textual corruption, the ending section does not get close to your claims. There is nothing at the ending of Matthew about baptism at all, and nothing about "in my name".

An interesting point that FZ tries to keep in the background is that this is NOT in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew.

This is direct from the 1995 2nd edition. p. 151

Hebrew Gospel of MATTHEW by George Howard - Part One.pdf https://www.academia.edu/32013676/Hebrew_Gospel_of_MATTHEW_by_George_Howard_-_Part_One.pdf

18 Jesus drew near to them and said to them:
To me has been given all power in heaven and earth
19 Go
20 and (teach) them to carry out all the things
which I have commanded you forever.

So there is no Bible ms. support for his rendering in any language at all.Compare the horrid Reader's Digest style mangling of the Shem Tov version with the beautiful pure Bible text:

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world.
Amen.

And Conybeare proposed a text with no mention of the water baptism, and then gave us this absurd and ignorant prediction:

"It may confidently be predicted that when the Greek and Latin fathers who wrote before 400 have been more carefully edited than hitherto from the best codices, scores of old readings will be restored in the text of the N.T. of which no trace remains in any Greek MS." Trying to be a Bible corrector, when we have God's pure word, is a haughty and proud endeavor.

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 10:06 PM

FlamingZword

02-24-2019, 10:22 PM

Exactly. Case closed.

Case Closed?

Who are you to decide when a case is closed or not.

Are you the decider on when a case is closed.

So you have set up yourself as judge?

Steven Avery

02-24-2019, 10:32 PM

Encyclopedia Biblica (1903), Vol. IV, Art. “Son of God” section 4698, #15 by Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures Nathanael Schmidt, “That the Trinitarian formula does not go back to Jesus himself is evident and recognized by all independent critics” Previously given in #67. And discussed in my post 251.

Yay! An accurate quote, just add baptismal before formula and give the recognised spelling ...

One of the more accurate quotes. However, the word baptismal is still omitted, showing that FZ's interest is polemic, not scholarship.

Esaias

02-24-2019, 10:57 PM

Case Closed?

Who are you to decide when a case is closed or not.

Are you the decider on when a case is closed.

So you have set up yourself as judge?

If a guy tries to sell me on something, then yes, I become judge as to whether or not the sale is worthwhile.

Thanks for giving brother Avery opportunity to bring up a lot of interesting information.

Steven Avery

02-25-2019, 12:08 AM

P.S. Please keep the name of that negative individual out of our discussions, I totally ignore anything that he says, and do not bother to read his posts, If this is true, that would go a long way to explaining why the shoddy scholarship, misinformation, misquoting, plagiarism, etc. in its various forms, is never corrected. Ignoring informed critics is not wisdom.

And I actually do not think that FZ keeps a record of where he picks up snippets of information, and misinformation. Generally, he accepts whatever he reads, if he views it favorably, without making an effort to find and check and work with the primary sources. Exceptions have been relatively rare so far.

Remember the disaster when he tried to describe translation, and every paragraph was curiously uneven, or incoherent.

And I am very happy to be "negative" toward shoddy scholarship, used to try to attack the pure Reformation Bible, including the wonderful and majestic Authorized Versions, and try to sow confusion and doubt about the integrity of God's word.

Thank you Lord Jesus for providential negativity!

If a guy tries to sell me on something, then yes, I become judge as to whether or not the sale is worthwhile.

Thanks for giving brother Avery opportunity to bring up a lot of interesting information. Most welcome on my 3ne. This is why I have no objection to the thread continuing, repetitive and new shoddy scholarship expected, and then exposed and rejected.

The goal is to really understand what is going on with the Matthew 28:19 shell game.

As a simple example, the simple fact that the Shem Tov is so distant from the FZ text has been kept hidden. And in this environment, the huge flaws in Bible faith, logic and scholarship are exposed.

Evang.Benincasa

02-25-2019, 04:45 AM

Case Closed?

Who are you to decide when a case is closed or not.

Are you the decider on when a case is closed.

So you have set up yourself as judge?

Case closed was decided due to lack of real evidence.

FlamingZword

02-25-2019, 09:28 PM

Case closed was decided due to lack of real evidence.

Et tu Brutus?

I am surprised that you give up so easily.
I have tons of evidence and information, and you already have surrendered to me.

as, John Paul Jones said "I have not yet begun to fight!" I have so much ammunition, enough to fight WWWIII and I shoot just a few BBs and you are already crying uncle?

FlamingZword

02-25-2019, 09:35 PM

If a guy tries to sell me on something, then yes, I become judge as to whether or not the sale is worthwhile.

Thanks for giving brother Avery opportunity to bring up a lot of interesting information.

you are getting the same attitude of those folks which refuse many of our teachings.Think about this;

You teach the sabbath and I teach the Sabbath, do people readily accept the sabbath teaching?

You teach the oneness of God and I teach the oneness of God, do people readily accept the oneness of God?

You teach baptism in the name of Jesus and I teach baptism in the name of Jesus, do people readily accept baptism in the name of Jesus?

I was going to include partial preterism, in this list, but I think that is bro Blume and bro Benicasa.

but the point is that you and I teach many similar doctrines, yet we also encounter resistance when teaching those other doctrines.

FlamingZword

02-25-2019, 09:37 PM

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (G) Rhenish Museum of Philology (1903) pp. 38-41 by Professor of Philology Hermann Karl Usener, calls Matthew 28:19 an acknowledged forgery

Steven Avery

02-25-2019, 09:59 PM

Et tu Brutus?I am surprised that you give up so easily. I have tons of evidence and information, and you already have surrendered to me. as, John Paul Jones said "I have not yet begun to fight!" I have so much ammunition, enough to fight WWWIII and I shoot just a few BBs and you are already crying uncle? This is rather pitiful.

It might make more sense to end the thread on the ethical grounds.
Es suficiente.

We have been getting repeats, anyway.

Esaias

02-26-2019, 12:35 AM

you are getting the same attitude of those folks which refuse many of our teachings.Think about this;

You teach the sabbath and I teach the Sabbath, do people readily accept the sabbath teaching?

You teach the oneness of God and I teach the oneness of God, do people readily accept the oneness of God?

You teach baptism in the name of Jesus and I teach baptism in the name of Jesus, do people readily accept baptism in the name of Jesus?

I was going to include partial preterism, in this list, but I think that is bro Blume and bro Benicasa.

but the point is that you and I teach many similar doctrines, yet we also encounter resistance when teaching those other doctrines.

I can pull up book chapter and verse for EVERY THING I TEACH, because I ONLY teach what I have book chapter and verse for. On this subject, however, you have NO TEXT. Reminder, the issue isn't about what the Name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is. The issue is what are the words of Scripture.

Remove Matthew 28:19, and you lose the very thing that revealed Jesus' name baptism to me. Since those are BIBLE, book, chapter, and verse, I'm not interested in a bunch of misrepresentations meant to attack the actual RECEIVED TEXT.

Evang.Benincasa

02-26-2019, 06:28 AM

you are getting the same attitude of those folks which refuse many of our teachings.Think about this;

You teach the sabbath and I teach the Sabbath, do people readily accept the sabbath teaching?

You teach the oneness of God and I teach the oneness of God, do people readily accept the oneness of God?

You teach baptism in the name of Jesus and I teach baptism in the name of Jesus, do people readily accept baptism in the name of Jesus?

I was going to include partial preterism, in this list, but I think that is bro Blume and bro Benicasa.

but the point is that you and I teach many similar doctrines, yet we also encounter resistance when teaching those other doctrines.

FZ, we all can believe what we believe in unity. Eschatology, Soteriology, Theology, but you are dabbling in textual criticism. Your dabbling is through shear emotional pleading. “Hey guys, you are all Apostolics! So, why not get rid of verses that seem too Trinitarian!!!” That isn’t what one should call scholarship.
You point out that we believe X, Y, and Z therefore we should clip away at an ancient document? Pull a stunt that has been employed by every cult since day one? No, sorry my old friend, but that bird don’t fly.

Evang.Benincasa

02-26-2019, 06:30 AM

I can pull up book chapter and verse for EVERY THING I TEACH, because I ONLY teach what I have book chapter and verse for. On this subject, however, you have NO TEXT. Reminder, the issue isn't about what the Name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is. The issue is what are the words of Scripture.

Remove Matthew 28:19, and you lose the very thing that revealed Jesus' name baptism to me. Since those are BIBLE, book, chapter, and verse, I'm not interested in a bunch of misrepresentations meant to attack the actual RECEIVED TEXT.

Amen!!!! Me too!!!

Matthew 28:19 is the verse that gave me revelation on One God. :thumbsup

votivesoul

02-26-2019, 11:23 PM

It is self-evident that I am quoting from books written by others, the post themselves give the name of the books, the authors, the date and even the page numbers. that is perfectly legitimate in any arguments.
so if anyone has accused me of anything, they have raised false accusations, which breaks the law of God, "you shall not raise a false witness."

Go back to all my posts and read that I give the full data of where I got my information and you will see that perhaps it is someone else who is raising false accusations.
I am used to false accusations from trinitarians, but I am surprised that someone who claims to be oneness would sink so low.

P.S. Please keep the name of that negative individual out of our discussions, I totally ignore anything that he says, and do not bother to read his posts, so I am not surprised he does not like that.

I realize you give book title and author citations, but did you find these tomes on your own, read them yourself, and copy their text so as to share the quotes here, or did you discover these quotes in other sources, other books by other authors, and not give credit to where you actually found them?

And as far as Steve is concerned, I'm not dealing with him on this issue. I am dealing with you.

FlamingZword

02-27-2019, 12:18 AM

I realize you give book title and author citations, but did you find these tomes on your own, read them yourself, and copy their text so as to share the quotes here, or did you discover these quotes in other sources, other books by other authors, and not give credit to where you actually found them?

And as far as Steve is concerned, I'm not dealing with him on this issue. I am dealing with you.

I have done over 10 years of research, and done a lot of hard work gathering information, there is no way I can remember every single place where I copied a citation straight from a book or something that was e-mailed to me from a friendly source. I have a lot of information. That is why I copied the name of the book, the Author, the year, and even the page number so I could reference it. I have never claimed to be the originator for any quotation.

But I must say this.
I have preached for over 35 years baptism in the name of Jesus and I had my own church, so I guess that makes me an "Elder"
Did not Paul said that against an "Elder" accept no accusation, except it be by the mouth of two witnesses.

That guy has said some very horrible things about me.
I am a christian minister, not a doormat, for him to speak to me in such a vitriolic manner, is just not right,
but I have not repaid evil with evil or insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)

For I know whom I have believed who said
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
and Do not repay anyone evil for evil (Romans 12:17)

Look at what he posted and tell me,
Would you accept someone speaking to you in such a negative way?

FlamingZword

02-27-2019, 12:21 AM

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (G) Rhenish Museum of Philology (1903) pp. 38-41 by Professor of Philology Hermann Karl Usener, calls Matthew 28:19 an acknowledged forgery.

Evang.Benincasa

02-27-2019, 06:44 AM

I have done over 10 years of research, and done a lot of hard work gathering information, there is no way I can remember every single place where I copied a citation straight from a book or something that was e-mailed to me from a friendly source. I have a lot of information. That is why I copied the name of the book, the Author, the year, and even the page number so I could reference it. I have never claimed to be the originator for any quotation.

But I must say this.
I have preached for over 35 years baptism in the name of Jesus and I had my own church, so I guess that makes me an "Elder"
Did not Paul said that against an "Elder" accept no accusation, except it be by the mouth of two witnesses.

That guy has said some very horrible things about me.
I am a christian minister, not a doormat, for him to speak to me in such a vitriolic manner, is just not right,
but I have not repaid evil with evil or insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)

For I know whom I have believed who said
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
and Do not repay anyone evil for evil (Romans 12:17)

Look at what he posted and tell me,
Would you accept someone speaking to you in such a negative way?

Then please explain how Greek verses do not work in Hebrew or Aramaic. Is Peter the foundation of the Church? Was the Syrophoenician (Greek speaker) a dog (any kind) or a little yapping, begging dog which ate table scraps? Is it impossible for camels to go through the eye of a needle, or a camel? Are we not to swallow ropes and strain gnats, or strain gnats and not swallow camels? Was Peter's brother named Adam, or Andrew? What is Phillip's Hebrew name? Since his name has no Hebrew or Aramaic origin? Nicodemus? His name actually has zero meaning in Hebrew, but has meaning in Greek. But since you been researching this for 10 years you will be able to easily answer me. :)

Steven Avery

02-27-2019, 07:00 AM

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (G) Rhenish Museum of Philology (1903) pp. 38-41 by Professor of Philology Hermann Karl Usener, calls Matthew 28:19 an acknowledged forgery.Neither FZ nor I know what Usener said about the verse, and the phrase, since he is working with unknown secondary or tertiary sources. Non-scholarship. I tend to doubt that Usener did much special analysis on Matthew 28:19 at all, although he was writing right after the Conybeare paper, so it is likely to have gotten some notice. Usener did put forth odd views on the birth narratives, the virgin birth, water baptism and he was something of a Trinity philosopher, mentioned in the Warfield book on that topic.

So let us look a bit at:

Hermann Karl Usener (1834-1905)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Usener

The mythicist William Benjamin Smith uses him as a reference:

accounts of the baptism of Jesus are entirely fictive .. Surely no one regards Matt xi 1-19, Luke vii 18-35, as historic

Open Court (1914)
https://books.google.com/books?id=nLsNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA39 Werner Georg Kummel tells us Usener is of the "ethnological school" and researches the "mythic tales" involving the New Testament.

The New Testament The History of the Investigation of its Problems (c. 1957)
http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF%20Books/00008%20Kummel%20The%20New%20Testament%20The%20His tory%20of%20the%20Invest~79B.pdfBernard Aubert writing on J. Gresham Machen's famous The Virgin Birth of Christ tells us that Hermann Usener considered the biblical infancy narratives “to be legend”, and he is of the History of Religion School
https://uniocc.com/account/download_journal/3Herman Bavinck writing c. 1910 in Dutch in Reformed Dogmatics, tells us that Usener saw Matthew 28:19 as "derived from pagan speculation", a view countered by Harnack, who supports Jewish-Christian origin.

Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (2008)
By Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, John Vriend
https://books.google.com/books?id=PP3dswxEfM8C&pg=PA502 No mention of "forgery".

Some final references for now, will be from:

The Historical Evidence of the Virgin Birth (1920)
Vincent Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=huzYAAAAMAAJ
http://www.archive.org/details/historicaleviden003240mbp
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54858/54858-pdf.pdf

p. 24 "deny that the Virgin Birth was an original element in the Third Gospel, but also that St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, ever taught that doctrine
p. 124 on the virgin birth as from "non-Christian myths"
p. 79 is humorous as Usener reconstructs the real virgin birth narrative writing.
See also p. 55:
https://books.google.com/books?id=huzYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA55

Usener writes (col. 3349): ‘To Joh. Hillmann (JPT. 17, aai flf.) belongs the merit of having conclusively shown that the two verses in Lk. (i. 34 f.), the only verses in the Third Gospel in which the supernatural birth of Jesus of the Virgin Mary is stated, are
incompatible with the entire representation of the rest of chaps, i and ii, and thus must have been interpolated by a redactor'.

Overall, worthless for our Matthew 28:19 studies, shoddy scholarship once again. However this leads to some interesting historical studies, such as Bible belief vs. mythicist error.

votivesoul

02-28-2019, 05:39 PM

I have done over 10 years of research, and done a lot of hard work gathering information, there is no way I can remember every single place where I copied a citation straight from a book or something that was e-mailed to me from a friendly source. I have a lot of information. That is why I copied the name of the book, the Author, the year, and even the page number so I could reference it. I have never claimed to be the originator for any quotation.

But I must say this.
I have preached for over 35 years baptism in the name of Jesus and I had my own church, so I guess that makes me an "Elder"
Did not Paul said that against an "Elder" accept no accusation, except it be by the mouth of two witnesses.

That guy has said some very horrible things about me.
I am a christian minister, not a doormat, for him to speak to me in such a vitriolic manner, is just not right,
but I have not repaid evil with evil or insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)

For I know whom I have believed who said
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
and Do not repay anyone evil for evil (Romans 12:17)

Look at what he posted and tell me,
Would you accept someone speaking to you in such a negative way?

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.

Evang.Benincasa

02-28-2019, 06:52 PM

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 :thumbsup

votivesoul

02-28-2019, 10:01 PM

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

02-28-2019, 10:52 PM

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

02-28-2019, 11:01 PM

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

FlamingZword

02-28-2019, 11:11 PM

FlamingZword

02-28-2019, 11:14 PM

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

03-01-2019, 12:01 AM

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

03-01-2019, 03:38 PM

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

FlamingZword

03-06-2019, 09:32 PM

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

03-07-2019, 04:27 PM

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?

1ofthechosen

03-07-2019, 05:59 PM

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.

The Saga continues... Still not one shred of proof after 2 years and 50 + pages on this thread, now it's time for the sequel he is ready to unleash the Revelation. Coming to a theatre near you..

FlamingZword

03-07-2019, 08:55 PM

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?

I am not interested in all the others.
I am only exclusively interested in Matthew 28:19, that's it.

FlamingZword

03-07-2019, 08:58 PM

The Saga continues... Still not one shred of proof after 2 years and 50 + pages on this thread, now it's time for the sequel he is ready to unleash the Revelation. Coming to a theatre near you..

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

You see evolutionists will not accept any proofs from Christians, no matter what kind they are.

Steven Avery

03-08-2019, 12:36 AM

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present? This shows that you approach this issue with delusions.

If you were rational, you might claim that you have some evidences, at best. And we would tell you that the evidences are minuscule, compared to the massive evidences for the traditional ending. A real discussion.

Talking of supposed "proofs", besides being delusionary, is a bit irritating to those who like to have sensible discussion.

Plus you have your major scholarship non-credibility problem. And you do not make corrections even when they are shown to you carefully. Thus, your references are largely worthless.

Plus, you have this habit of quoting tons of liberals and unbelievers who theorized that Matthew's ending was not authentic, usually attacking full verses. As if that is relevant.

Plus, you have the trickster problem of not even following the wording of Eusebius, ShemTob, etc.

It is fun to take your errors, and then learn, study and correct the scholarship. So as the springboard to real learning, I try to make some sense out of your spaghetti scholarship.

Steven

Steven Avery

03-08-2019, 01:47 AM

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1FZ has totally mangled this reference.

More problems of not having read the section, misrepresentation and apparent plagiarism.

And I do not think FZ can give you an answer. He is plagiarizing secondary and tertiary sources and on the Hastings quotes they are a total mess, with missing "..." and various inserted parenthesis by who knows who, and very unclear sources.

That quote above could be from a Baptism article, or Trinity, or possibly Sacraments.
FZ is including two different editions, and the Hastings Bible Dictionary quotes he gives could include snippets from:

1898 - Alfred Plummer, Baptism (https://archive.org/details/dictionbibjames01hast/page/238)
1909 - Charles Archibald Anderson Scott, Baptism (https://archive.org/details/cu31924029271223/page/n103)
1910 - Kirsopp Lake, Baptism (Early Christians) (https://books.google.com/books?id=oEATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q&f=false), (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings)
1963 - Andrew Bruce Davidson, Trinity (possibly)

We will switch gears a bit here from the FZ references to general referencing.

Some of the Hastings references have given a page number without a year, title or name of author. ...

A tract accredited to Nathaniel Andrew Urshan, and published by Harvestime, had some mangled quotes: ... Various changes in this doctored "quote" have greatly distorted the history. ... You can see that this 2002 book by Bruce Tucker properly ripped to shreds some of the improper citation techniques, with the Hastings material being center-stage.

...

And none of this misquoting and other deceptive and false citation methods were at all necessary. They do leave a scholastic stain. Has the current material been checked? Have the perps, or their spiritual heirs, ever given a public acknowledgment, correction and apology? What current historical material from Oneness sources can truly be trusted as accurate? Do we have to check books like:

Evang.Benincasa

03-08-2019, 05:32 PM

I am not interested in all the others.
I am only exclusively interested in Matthew 28:19, that's it.

https://media.giphy.com/media/a5auAyjyCOf1S/giphy.gif

Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't matter what you are interested in or not. Life is about what is logically the outcome, or illogically the outcome. You choose. By you stating that the original wording of Matthew 28:19 is some how been added. You automatically bring doubt on the entire Gospel document. Also you have offered us the idea that Matthew was originally penned entirely in the Hebrew language. Therefore you should be easily able to answer my questions on some of the problems. Which are that some verses in Matthew cannot possibly translated into Hebrew. While it seems to be that you must be surrounded in your own private Idaho by yes men and women. You, therefore continue in live with your head buried in the ecclesiastical sand. I pray that you would consider your lack of understanding of these simple illogical results of your quest.

Your friend ( I hope) :)

Brother B

Evang.Benincasa

03-08-2019, 05:35 PM

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

You see evolutionists will not accept any proofs from Christians, no matter what kind they are.

https://media.giphy.com/media/RZEX2WpyiC3x6/giphy.gif

1ofthechosen

03-08-2019, 11:50 PM

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

You see evolutionists will not accept any proofs from Christians, no matter what kind they are.

What in Tarnation does evolutionists of all things have to do with this topic? Evolutionists wouldn't accept the Bible at all, much less Matthew 28:19?

1ofthechosen

03-08-2019, 11:50 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/RZEX2WpyiC3x6/giphy.gif

You captured my exact reaction..

FlamingZword

03-09-2019, 09:32 PM

What in Tarnation does evolutionists of all things have to do with this topic? Evolutionists wouldn't accept the Bible at all, much less Matthew 28:19?

My point is simply that some people will not accept any evidence whatsoever, their mind is already made up and they will believe whatever it is they believe despite any evidence to the contrary.

1ofthechosen

03-09-2019, 11:01 PM

My point is simply that some people will not accept any evidence whatsoever, their mind is already made up and they will believe whatever it is they believe despite any evidence to the contrary.

You have some Hebrew Manuscripts you bought off of Amazon. It's not like you did a dig and found this stuff. No scholarship not Oneness, Trinitarian, or Unitarian or secular for that matter is also saying this. You are the only one. So either this is the best hid secret ever, or it's misinformation. But you keep dragging us along and you never produce any real evidence Besides you giving your word that it is as you say it is, but no evidence. So I say at this point it's highly doubtful, or otherwise you would've already produced some evidence. More than just cuz you say so. And once again it doesn't matter one way or the other, Matthew 28:19 supports are Beliefs already just the way it is, And has always been historically.

FlamingZword

03-10-2019, 04:50 PM

You are the only one.

Nope I am not the only one, there are others.

here is one other
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPy4gnj57cg

Scott Pitta

03-10-2019, 05:42 PM

TV preachers are great examples of egomaniacs, not textual critics.

Did they provide any Greek manuscripts of Matthew with alternative endings of Mt. 28:19 ??

Steven Avery

03-10-2019, 08:45 PM

Nope I am not the only one, there are others.
here is one other Ken Raggio gets the most basic facts wrong. He actually thinks that Eusebius is the earliest reference when there are many earlier that affirm the traditional ending. I'll make an effort to help him with the corrections.

And I see those errors in some of his writing.

If I am going to listen to that video, I would like to know the minute spot where he specifically discusses the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. That would help a bit.

Ken Raggio Blog
Fake Rolex Christians
http://kenraggio.blogspot.com/2014/02/fake-rolex-christians.html

In the EARLIEST known existing versions of Matthew 28:19, early Church patriarch Eusebius quoted it saying, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in the name of Christ..." That was quoted EIGHTEEN TIMES by Eusebius in his writings between 290-339 AD.

So, the OLDEST versions of Matthew 28:19 do NOT say "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." THAT rendering, using only TITLES and not the NAME of Jesus, first appeared at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was formulated and written by Catholic theologians, not by the original Apostles or Jesus Christ Himself. Here are references about which Ken Raggio is ignorant, because of the skewed presentations that he accepts without any checking.

Matthew 28:19 -Ante-Nicene referencing (before Eusebius) - the Ehrman textual criticism discussion
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?983-Matthew-28-19-Ante-Nicene-referencing-(before-Eusebius)-the-Ehrman-textual-criticism-discussion

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Ignatius (110 AD)
Epistle to the Philadelphians

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD)
First Apology

Irenaeus - (2nd century)
Against Heresies

Diatessoran (Tatian, c.175 AD)

Didache (c. 2nd century)

Apostolic Teachings (2nd Century) (x references)

The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles

Tertullian - (c. 200 AD)
On Baptism.-- Chapter XIII.
Against Praxeas
Prescription against Heretics

Hippolytus (c.200 AD)
Against the Heresy of One Noetus

Cyprian (c. 230 AD)
Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
Epistle LXXII.1 To Jubaianus

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
Lucius of Castra Galbae
Munnulus of Girba
Euchratius of Thenae
Bishop Vincentius of Thibaris

Origen (c.250 AD)
Commentary on Romans
Origen de Principiis Book I

Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 250 AD)
A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII

Treatise Against Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop.(c.255)

Treatise on Rebaptism (c 250)

Victorinus (c.300AD)

Oneness believers who take this stance make the whole belief look foolish, as Bible correctors amd manglers. They are a stain upon the apostolic doctrine.

diakonos

03-10-2019, 11:19 PM

Ok. So, when I attended a UPC at the age of 15 I got some tracts that were placed neae the off... the tithe envelopes. One of them was on Baptism. In the tract it was stated that Matt 28:19 was not in original text. I NEVER heard it preached. The pastor always used the singular name argument (name of the Father, etc.).

Ffwd 3 years later and I recall listening to a oneness debate posted on what may have been a popular apostolic site at the time. The site has ben down for many years, and I do not remember the url.
Anyway. The debate was DKB vs. Some Trinitarian Guy. At the end of the debate they allowed questions. Some man asked STG if he KNEW that Matt 28:19 was NOT the original text.

Strange, what things that trigger memories.

FlamingZword

03-11-2019, 08:01 PM

Anyway. The debate was DKB vs. Some Trinitarian Guy. At the end of the debate they allowed questions. Some man asked STG if he KNEW that Matt 28:19 was NOT the original text.

Strange, what things that trigger memories.

who was or is DKB?

FlamingZword

03-11-2019, 08:02 PM

TV preachers are great examples of egomaniacs, not textual critics.

Did they provide any Greek manuscripts of Matthew with alternative endings of Mt. 28:19 ??

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts. :)
Jesus was not a Greek.

Esaias

03-11-2019, 08:16 PM

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts. :)
Jesus was not a Greek.

:spit

Says it all, right here, folks. "Obsessed with Greek manuscripts"? Hey, I got some Golden Plates written in ancient Nephite I can sell you... :slaphappy

Steven Avery

03-12-2019, 01:14 AM

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts. :)
Jesus was not a Greek.Greek (all text-lines)
Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate)
Syriac

and the various early versions:
Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Bohairic, Sahidic, Slavonic et al.

If there was substantive diversions in early versions, that would in fact be important. However, there is 100% unanimity for the traditional text.

Here is a reasonable summary:

February 22, 2018
Historical Evidence in favour of Matthew Chapter 28:19 and Response to Claims of Inauthenticity
Article by an Anonymous Contributo
http://www.asitreads.com/blog/2018/2/22/historical-evidence-in-favour-of-matthew-chapter-2819-and-response-to-claims-of-inauthenticity

There is no Greek manuscript of the last page of Matthew that does not include these words. None. Not a single one.

The words are found in every Old Latin (Vetus Latina/Itala) that date to before the Vulgate. This includes the Waldensian text-type of the Romaunt. They are also found in all Vulgate manuscripts.

The words are found in every Aramaic/Syriac edition including Tatian's Diatessaron (Gospel Harmony) from the second century which is likely based off of the Old Syriac (Vetus Syra) Curetonian and Synaitic gospels, the Peshitta and the later Philoxenian and Harklean redactions.

The words are found in every copy of the Boharic and Sahidic Coptic, Geez Ethipopic, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic and Saxon versions which contain the last page of Matthew's gospel.

The only outlier is a very late Hebrew manuscript (dated to 1385 A.D.) of Matthew that we will examine in its own section.

Evang.Benincasa

03-12-2019, 05:43 PM

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts. :)
Jesus was not a Greek.

Obsessed? Look, if we had the New Testament originally written in Sumerian, and that the Middle East spoke Sumerian, during the first century. That the Hebrew Bible was translated into Sumerian 500 years before the first century AD. That the New Testament writers quoted from that text regularly. Then we would be advocating logic that the New Testament writers were using that copy of text when they wrote the New Testament. That Sumerian was the original language of the entire New Testament. We would then be questioning you to prove that instead of Sumerian could you produce your so called Hebrew manuscripts. In turn you would then tell us that Jesus wasn't Sumerian, and that we were obsessed with Sumerian. Just place any ancient language within the scenario I described. You obviously are doing a little Psychological projecting here. Because one can see that you are obsessed with Hebrew? Looking at Jesus as some super Jew, more than the Christ, the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world?

Jesus was indeed Judean, but He was part of an enormous Greek Roman world. Went to Egypt as a small child where much of the Hellenized Judean Diaspora were located. He quoted from a Greek LXX. Jesus also word plays in Greek, once to Peter, and another time to a Syrophoenician woman. I love you, and consider you a friend. But must strongly advise you that what you believe in isn't remotely logical. 2,000 plus years He has been called by the name Iesous/Jesus and we all came into the church through that name. Reading a 100% GREEK (translated into your language of choice. English, Italian, Spanish, German) New Testament. Hebrew Onlyism is a Matrix which you may never wake up from.

Esaias

03-12-2019, 09:48 PM

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

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

diakonos

03-12-2019, 10:05 PM

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. :lol

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

Esaias

03-16-2019, 11:09 PM

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

03-17-2019, 07:17 AM

FlamingZword

03-17-2019, 09:58 AM

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, :clap 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? :D)

Evang.Benincasa

03-18-2019, 05:14 AM

Excellent post, :clap 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? :D)

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

03-18-2019, 08:23 PM

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!!!! :laffatu

Evang.Benincasa

03-20-2019, 05:05 PM

FZ, where did anyone disrespect you in this thread?

FlamingZword

03-20-2019, 11:54 PM

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

03-21-2019, 03:59 AM

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.

Evang.Benincasa

03-21-2019, 11:57 AM

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?

FZ, what is wrong with what has been said concerning you? These are perceptions which are followed after one reads what you believe. You know we all have had the same things said about us throughout the years we have been posting. We have all had a turn at the wheel. These things are expected to happen when one criticises our beliefs. Textual Criticism makes Eschatology look like a joke. Yet, Textual Criticism needs to have real evidence, to be proven. With all due respect for our friendship, you don't have any evidence. Other than the writings of early Textual Critics who not only doubted the original Matthew 28:19 but whole entire chapters. Even books, like 2 Thessalonians. My plea is that before you take your show on the road, you shouldve had all this figured out first.

With love

In Jesus name

FlamingZword

03-21-2019, 10:30 PM

FZ, what is wrong with what has been said concerning you? These are perceptions which are followed after one reads what you believe. You know we all have had the same things said about us throughout the years we have been posting. We have all had a turn at the wheel. These things are expected to happen when one criticises our beliefs. Textual Criticism makes Eschatology look like a joke. Yet, Textual Criticism needs to have real evidence, to be proven. With all due respect for our friendship, you don't have any evidence. Other than the writings of early Textual Critics who not only doubted the original Matthew 28:19 but whole entire chapters. Even books, like 2 Thessalonians. My plea is that before you take your show on the road, you shouldve had all this figured out first.

With love

In Jesus name

Yes I know about taking a turn at the wheel

Well, I have been called much worse names by Trinitarians, because I preached baptism in the name of Jesus, so I am kind of used to being called names and being told I am a liar, a heretic, and an apostate.
I got ejected from many trinitarian forums for debating and calling the trinity a false doctrine. so I am perfectly OK with people rejecting my ideas.

Of course I was not expecting Apostolics to accept these ideas with open arms, but perhaps I was expecting the debating atmosphere, to be a little less vitriolic, without the name calling, but I guess you are right, I should have figured out the reaction would be about the same.

Live and learn. :kickcan

Evang.Benincasa

03-22-2019, 05:34 AM

Yes I know about taking a turn at the wheel

Well, I have been called much worse names by Trinitarians, because I preached baptism in the name of Jesus, so I am kind of used to being called names and being told I am a liar, a heretic, and an apostate.
I got ejected from many trinitarian forums for debating and calling the trinity a false doctrine. so I am perfectly OK with people rejecting my ideas.

Of course I was not expecting Apostolics to accept these ideas with open arms, but perhaps I was expecting the debating atmosphere, to be a little less vitriolic, without the name calling, but I guess you are right, I should have figured out the reaction would be about the same.

Live and learn. :kickcan

Paul prayed thrice to have the thorn taken away. His grace is all we need to get through and embrace the thorn. :thumbsup

Esaias

03-22-2019, 03:17 PM

Evang.Benincasa

03-22-2019, 05:33 PM

I'm still waiting to see the manuscript evidence. So far, across several threads, none has been offered. Just reams of often misquoted citations from men who generally think the Bible is chock full of errors and mythology.

Therein lies the rub. FZ, this is the problem, and obstacle for us. You told us in another thread (the new one you started) that some things you didn't really know. Therefore you should go back to the woodshed and stay there until you take your show on the road. You compared us with Trinitarians. We aren't blind Trinitarians unwilling to learn, therefore as Trinitarians lashing out at what they believe to be heresy. I already gave you my view on all of this in this very thread. If the traditional, original Greek Matthew 28:19 is spurious, then what else is botched up? It is that simple. If we have a Greek forgery with one error, then logically there should be at least two or three others? Wouldn't you agree? The people you have quoted not only believe Matthew 29:19 to be bogus but whole books in the New Testament. Where does it end? Agostic, and Atheist like Bart Ehrman.

FlamingZword

03-22-2019, 09:09 PM

I'm still waiting to see the manuscript evidence. So far, across several threads, none has been offered. Just reams of often misquoted citations from men who generally think the Bible is chock full of errors and mythology.

Regarding that of the often misquoted citations, not all of them were misquoted citations. OK maybe I am at fault for not reviewing more carefully some of the citations I received from friendly sources.

I combined what they sent me with what I am found in my own research, so now I will have to go back and recheck each one of those citations.
If I had kept them separate I would have less work to do.

but no problem, I know that probably half or more of my citations are correct, so this will just serve as a lesson.

Live and learn.:kickcan

FlamingZword

03-22-2019, 09:14 PM

Therein lies the rub. FZ, this is the problem, and obstacle for us. You told us in another thread (the new one you started) that some things you didn't really know. Therefore you should go back to the woodshed and stay there until you take your show on the road. You compared us with Trinitarians. We aren't blind Trinitarians unwilling to learn, therefore as Trinitarians lashing out at what they believe to be heresy. I already gave you my view on all of this in this very thread. If the traditional, original Greek Matthew 28:19 is spurious, then what else is botched up? It is that simple. If we have a Greek forgery with one error, then logically there should be at least two or three others? Wouldn't you agree? The people you have quoted not only believe Matthew 29:19 to be bogus but whole books in the New Testament. Where does it end? Agostic, and Atheist like Bart Ehrman.

ah the slippery slope argument, pretty good.
you paid attention in the debate class. :)

Esaias

03-22-2019, 11:07 PM

Regarding that of the often misquoted citations, not all of them were misquoted citations. OK maybe I am at fault for not reviewing more carefully some of the citations I received from friendly sources.

I combined what they sent me with what I am found in my own research, so now I will have to go back and recheck each one of those citations.
If I had kept them separate I would have less work to do.

but no problem, I know that probably half or more of my citations are correct, so this will just serve as a lesson.

Live and learn.:kickcan

If some friendly sources started giving you "evidence" that your wife was cheating on you, I'm sure you would go over EVERY JOT AND TITTLE with a fine toothed comb, like maybe haul out the electron microscopes, spend all your money on hiring private detectives to verify the truth. AND, not that these efforts would be spent trying to "catch" your wife, but rather they would be spent trying to vindicate her honour. Why? Because you would never doubt her one single bit unless and until OVERWHELMING AND UNDENIABLE evidence was presented, and EVEN THEN you'd do everything in your power to prove it wrong and vindicate the love of your life.

How much MORE diligent and scrupulous should we be when someone suggests to us to start DOUBTING THE VERY WORDS OF SCRIPTURE?

This is why most of us here aren't impressed with the quotes you are giving us. WHERE'S THE PROOF? We need something more than a bunch of infidels telling us our Bible is wrong. Where is the manuscript evidence?

All the manuscripts, all the ones GOD HAS PRESERVED FOR US TO GO BY, read a certain way, which is NOT the way you are telling us is the correct reading. Do you see the issue, then? The Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts. If they all agree in a particular reading, THAT'S THE READING WE GO BY. In those places where manuscripts differ, we must be studious to determine which is the authentic, original reading. BUT EITHER WAY WE ARE WORKING WITH KNOWN EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS.

What you are doing is taking people's CLAIMS and SPECULATIONS and saying we need to CHANGE THE BIBLE to match them, when those same people can't even remotely agree on how it should read! And they have no TEXTS to support their claims. The logical, rational conclusion is the claims are UNFOUNDED.

Evang.Benincasa

03-23-2019, 08:16 AM

ah the slippery slope argument, pretty good.
you paid attention in the debate class. :)

With love and utmost care I'm posting this post to you. Please notice the dig you just gave me. Paying attention in debate class? REALLY? OK, no problem. I just wanted to point this out. Brother, now we know you can do it with ease, even when someone is leveling with you. So, no need to start threads with conditions of how we need to hold a discussion with you. Because you are a man, you are a preacher, and you are convinced on what you believe concerning replacing the original traditional wording of Matthew 28:19. Therefore if you feel mistreated in some of these posts i'm sorry you feel that way, but with the above posting I'm pretty convinced that you can suck up anything that may be sent your way. If you can dish it out then by all means you can take it. I hope.

I have asked you to please show us how we would deal with an untranslatable verse in Matthew. One which is virtually impossible to be translated into Hebrew/Aramaic. You either declined, or outright ignored it. Also I asked you what we should do with the problem of other verses or the entire New Testament credibility. This would be a problem, but you said you weren't concerned with "other" verses, but Matthew 28:19. You might not understand this, but you aren't winning your audience, but you just continue to alienate us with every post. We aren't enemies, we are brothers, so, therefore spoon feed as we question you to the big shotgun holes in this issue.

Your friend

Shu Iesu Kirisuto no na ni yotte

はい！

Evang.Benincasa

03-23-2019, 08:17 AM

If some friendly sources started giving you "evidence" that your wife was cheating on you, I'm sure you would go over EVERY JOT AND TITTLE with a fine toothed comb, like maybe haul out the electron microscopes, spend all your money on hiring private detectives to verify the truth. AND, not that these efforts would be spent trying to "catch" your wife, but rather they would be spent trying to vindicate her honour. Why? Because you would never doubt her one single bit unless and until OVERWHELMING AND UNDENIABLE evidence was presented, and EVEN THEN you'd do everything in your power to prove it wrong and vindicate the love of your life.

How much MORE diligent and scrupulous should we be when someone suggests to us to start DOUBTING THE VERY WORDS OF SCRIPTURE?

This is why most of us here aren't impressed with the quotes you are giving us. WHERE'S THE PROOF? We need something more than a bunch of infidels telling us our Bible is wrong. Where is the manuscript evidence?

All the manuscripts, all the ones GOD HAS PRESERVED FOR US TO GO BY, read a certain way, which is NOT the way you are telling us is the correct reading. Do you see the issue, then? The Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts. If they all agree in a particular reading, THAT'S THE READING WE GO BY. In those places where manuscripts differ, we must be studious to determine which is the authentic, original reading. BUT EITHER WAY WE ARE WORKING WITH KNOWN EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS.

What you are doing is taking people's CLAIMS and SPECULATIONS and saying we need to CHANGE THE BIBLE to match them, when those same people can't even remotely agree on how it should read! And they have no TEXTS to support their claims. The logical, rational conclusion is the claims are UNFOUNDED.

This is a beautiful post!!! :yourock