Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

Here is an account from The Antiquities of the Christian Church (1841) p. 467 translated by Lyman Coleman “Thaddeus, one of the seventy, to Edessa, who healed the king of an incurable disease under which he had been suffering for seven years, and afterwards, baptized him in the name of Christ.”

[FlamingZword]

In the Syriac version of the Apocryphal New Testament The Acts of Thomas, 27, the apostle, being about to baptize Gundaphorus the king of India with his brother Gad, invokes the holy name of the Christ, and among other invocations says (according to the best Greek text): Note by Professor F. C. Burkitt, D.D.
Then later we read “And Mygdonia said: Give me the seal [baptism] of Jesus Christ”, “we invoke upon thee the name of [thy?] Jesus. And he said: Let the powers of blessing come, and be established in this bread, that all the souls which partake of it may be washed from their sins.”, “whereupon we invoke thine holy name.”, “In thy name, O Jesu Christ, let it be unto these souls for remission of sins and for turning back of the adversary and for salvation of their souls.”

[FlamingZword]

The Acts of Peter and Paul has the following text “some of those that had repented out of the nations and that had been baptized at the preaching of Peter…but we positively believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, into whom we have been baptized, that we have become worthy also of your teaching.”

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Here is an account from The Antiquities of the Christian Church (1841) p. 467 translated by Lyman Coleman “Thaddeus, one of the seventy, to Edessa, who healed the king of an incurable disease under which he had been suffering for seven years, and afterwards, baptized him in the name of Christ.”

Wrong again. That is the summary and commentary of Lyman Coleman, it is not a translation of the Armenian text.

Ancient Christianity exemplified in the ... life of the primitive Christians (1852 editon)
Lyman Coleman
https://books.google.com/books?id=tOUCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA556

You would have to find the actual text of "Moses Chorenensis, the Armenian historian."

Movses Khorenatsi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movses_Khorenatsi

And if it is the words of Moses Chorenensis, it would not be evidence of the Matthew text.
Simply evidence of how they baptized, as do Apostolics today.

Here is a good article by Lyman Coleman.

Eusebius as an Historian (1858)
Lyman Coleman
https://books.google.com/books?id=z00XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78
Lyman Coleman

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In the Syriac version of the Apocryphal New Testament The Acts of Thomas, 27, the apostle, being about to baptize Gundaphorus the king of India with his brother Gad, invokes the holy name of the Christ, and among other invocations says (according to the best Greek text): Note by Professor F. C. Burkitt, D.D.
Then later we read “And Mygdonia said: Give me the seal [baptism] of Jesus Christ”, “we invoke upon thee the name of [thy?] Jesus. And he said: Let the powers of blessing come, and be established in this bread, that all the souls which partake of it may be washed from their sins.”, “whereupon we invoke thine holy name.”, “In thy name, O Jesu Christ, let it be unto these souls for remission of sins and for turning back of the adversary and for salvation of their souls.”

And from the Acts of Thomas, on the very same page as the invoke quote (which also invokes the name of the mother):

The New Testament Apocrypha
Acts of Thomas
https://books.google.com/books?id=aUHlC6XW1-AC&pg=PA422

And having thus said, he poured oil over their heads and said: Glory be to thee the love of compassion (bowels). Glory to thee, name of Christ. Glory to thee, power established in Christ. And he commanded a vessel to be brought, and baptized them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

So this one is not a testimony to the Matthew text, and it is not a testimony to baptism in the name of Jesus. In fact, there seems to be three such references in The Acts of Thomas.

Why not try to do real scholarship?
Why leave off a reference on the same page?

[Scott Pitta]

The key issue is how the Matthew greg commission is quoted. Unless a quote specifically mentions Matthew, it does not have any value for determining the text of Mt. 28:19.

[FlamingZword]

The Gospel of Philip has the following text “Those who will be baptized go down into the water. But Christ, by coming out of the water, will consecrate it, so that they who have received the baptism in his name may be perfect.”, “By perfecting the water of baptism, Jesus emptied it of death.”, “If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian," he has borrowed the name at interest.”, “Baptism is "the Holy" building”, “Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption”, “we are conceived through Christ in baptism”, “The holy place is baptism”, “Baptism entails resurrection and redemption, and redemption is in the bridal chamber”.” As Jesus perfected the water of baptism, he poured death out. For this reason we go down into the water but not into death, that we may not be poured out into the spirit of the world.”, “Great is baptism,” for if people receive it, they will live”

[Evang.Benincasa]

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

[Scott Pitta]

It would be interesting and beneficial to see more quotes of the supposed Hebrew original in the current Greek text. But there seems to be none.

Then again, there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew from the second or third centuries for us to examine.

Nor are there any variant readings of Mt. 28:19 for any reason.

Theories must be based on hard data.