Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
FZ's argument is dying a slow and painful death. The whole hullabaloo over the so-called spurious scripture has flipped flopped a few times in this thread. He has gone from the mythical Hebrew Only Matthew void of the traditional Matthew 28:19. To proving to us the importance of Jesus name baptism??? Which no one here would try to refute due to everyone believing in Jesus name baptism. So, why is FZ going in those directions on a thread that is obviously directed in proving the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious? Because FZ, knows that the argument against the traditional Matthew 28:19 is futile, and lacks good strong evidence. Therefore FZ now fills pages proving the need to baptism in Jesus name. As if that proves his argument that Matthew 28:19 in its traditional wording is spurious |
Nope my arguments are not dying a slow and painful death. On the contrary they are starting to grow up.
Perhaps you have failed to understand my arguments, but I can assure you they are in tip top shape.
You say the mythical Hebrew Only Matthew, but I have provided proof that many people considered it quite real.
Threaded Mode
