Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
An anonymous commentator (perhaps Ploughman) says the following; “Professor and Church historian Walker reviles the true origin and purpose of Mat 28:19, the spurious Catholic text of Mat 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Mat 28:19, it is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! Therefore, Mat 28:19 is not the ‘Great Commission of Jesus Christ.’ Mat 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Cor 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Mat 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetonianus and Bobiensis?” |
Another scholarship disaster.
The anonymous commentary is worthless. And there is nothing surprising that the end of a book (not just
Matthew 28:19) is lacuna in ancient mss.
And the "Yeshua/Jesus" comment makes it look like it was made (or changed) in recent years, which should leave out Ploughman. Randall Duane Hughes has some 1962 material from Ploughman:
http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm
What about Professor Walker?
Williston Walker (1860-1922)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Walker
Quote:
A History of the Christian Church (1918)
Williston Walker
https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ
Discussion here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA95
With the early disciples generality baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” 4 There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matt. 2819. That text is early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching,5 and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).7
|
So the commentator deceived about Walker. There is nothing reviling the
Matthew 28:19 verse.
And if you think it might be another Walker, see this contra page which purports to gives quote from the 1953 edition of his book:
http://www.biblicaltruths.com/has-th...tain-doctrine/
Perhaps this writer is confusing somebodies commentary with the actual book of Walker.
======================
Quote:
Clinton Willis has dubious quotes that he attributes to Walker from the 1953 edition
A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19.
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm
Remember, Willis is shown by Tim Hegg to use references that are far from scholarly. This whole situation is a sad reflection on "Oneness" scholarship on this issue. Thus one writer set up a "Oneness Pentecostal Hall of Shame", focused around the attack on Matthew 28:19.
As for Clinton Willis, his LinkedIn page says his "Dr." comes from:
Apostolic Theological Bible College, United Apostolic Theological Seminary
Doctorate of Theology, Ph.D. in Theological and Religious Studies, MA in Church
History, Theology/Theological Studies.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-clinton-willis-38aa4868/
|
Walker's words would be expected to be identical to 1918, he passed in 1922. David Bernard used his 1947 edition in his bibliography, without any quotes and deceptions.
Next step will be to try to get a copy of the 1953 edition, or perhaps 1847. (There are a number of later editions.)
Abebooks shows a 1950 edition, that might be a good try.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Boo...-srp5-_-title5
When it comes to the quote-snippet secondary and tertiary and quaternary quoting and misquoting:
None dare call this scholarship!
Threaded Mode
