Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

In 1778 in The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples by professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages, Hermann Samuel Reimarus wrote: “In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus”

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In 1778 in The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples by professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages, Hermann Samuel Reimarus wrote: “In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus”

FZ, if Satan was to have a quote defending your position, would you honor it?

The above opinion is from another individual who denied the deity of Christ. Like Thomas Jefferson, Reimarus believed that the New Testament as filled with insertions, and untruths. FZ, it seems since you couldn't reconcile these verses you gave up, and decided they needed to be removed? Doctrines which are built by removing book, chapters, and verses are false doctrines.

Think about it.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The above opinion is from another individual who denied the deity of Christ. Like Thomas Jefferson, Reimarus believed that the New Testament as filled with insertions, and untruths

Just a bit more on Reimarus, through Albert Schweitzer, a fan. This chapter starts on p. 13, and is all from Reimarus.

The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910, this edition 2012)
By Albert Schweitzer
https://books.google.com/books?id=9QN-POg7xSAC&pg=PA18
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../chapter2.html

Hermann Samuel Reimarus

...

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are no evidence that Jesus intended to found a new religion. In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt, xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus. In this it is inconsistent with the earliest traditions regarding the practice of baptism in the Christian community, for in theearliest times, as we learn from the Acts and from Paul, it was the custom to baptize, not in the name of the Trinity, but in the name of Jesus, the Messiah.

But, furthermore, it is questionable whether Baptism really goes back to Jesus at all. He Himself baptized no one in His own lifetime, and never commanded any of His converts to be baptized. So we cannot be sure about the origin of Baptism, though we can be sure of its meaning. Baptism in the name of Jesus signified only that Jesus was the Messiah.“ For the only change which the teaching of Jesus made in their religion was that whereas they had formerly believed in a Deliverer of Israel who was to come in the future, they now believed in a Deliverer who was already present.”

[FlamingZword]

John Chambers in An Harmony of the Four Gospels (1813) in a note to Matthew 28:19 says: "We find Christ's disciples,…baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or into Jesus Christ, etc.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, if Satan was to have a quote defending your position, would you honor it?

The above opinion is from another individual who denied the deity of Christ. Like Thomas Jefferson, Reimarus believed that the New Testament as filled with insertions, and untruths. FZ, it seems since you couldn't reconcile these verses you gave up, and decided they needed to be removed? Doctrines which are built by removing book, chapters, and verses are false doctrines.

Think about it.

Paul cited pagan philosophers, which were worshipers of pagan images and deities.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

John Chambers in An Harmony of the Four Gospels (1813) in a note to Matthew 28:19 says: "We find Christ's disciples,…baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or into Jesus Christ, etc.

The Chambers text is:

An harmony of the four Gospels, or A series of the narratives of the Evangelists
(1813)
John Chambers (of Retford)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HVoUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA873

19 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them, in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;

We find Christ’s disciples, instead of baptizing men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or info Jesus Christ, &c. As the three persons of the triune Deity, are said to be one, I John 5: 7, Paul, and Christ’s disciples, probably baptized only in one of the names, for that reason. See Acts 2: 38, 41. - 8:12,16,36, &c. - 10:43 - 19:5. - 22: i6. Rom. 6: 3, 4. — I Cor. 1: 15. - 12; 13. - 15: 29. Gal, 3: 27. Col, 2: 12.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

John Chambers in An Harmony of the Four Gospels (1813) in a note to Matthew 28:19 says: "We find Christ's disciples,…baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or into Jesus Christ, etc.

FZ, where does anyone dispute this? Now you are off the subject. The subject isn’t the baptism formula used by the Apostolic church. Whether or not the correct formula is the name or titles. We baptize in Jesus name. The church baptized in Jesus name. Your argument is that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew and that is was corrupted by Greek scribes you totally changed the contents. That Trinitarian slanted views were inserted. This my friend is a charge that makes Rabbi, Muslims, Mormons, and Atheists stand to give you a round of applause. It is embarrassing that one, you don’t understand the verse in the oringinal form. So much in fact, that you feel the need to modify the text without solid evidence. Two, that you can’t see that what you propose brings the entire New Testament into question. Where you actually aren’t helping, but hurting. You must not care. Looks like agenda for your beliefs overrides truthful scholarship.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Paul cited pagan philosophers, which were worshipers of pagan images and deities.

Sad, FZ, seriously? Paul was using their content of thought. How it logically agreed with the church. You on the other hand are bringing to use content of theology. Where these philosophers and theologians are making statements concerning CHRIST’S DEITY. Hence they doubted the very use of the verse. These weren’t pagans making philosophical statements who were clueless about Christianity. These are philosophers and theologians who didn’t believe the text was sound, translated correctly, and didn’t believe Jesus Christ was GOD. Sorry, but you don’t understand difference. Paul believed Jesus was God. Used quotes from the Hellenized world where they agreed with Paul’s teachings. The pagan philosophers WHERENT Christians, we see how Paul treated false teachers.
FZ, you are losing the argument, and need to step up your game.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The Chambers text is:

Exactly, because Chambers didn't believe that Matthew 28:19 was spurious.
It looks like FZ has run out of road in defending his claims concerning the New Testament's supposed corruptions.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Exactly, because Chambers didn't believe that Matthew 28:19 was spurious.
It looks like FZ has run out of road in defending his claims concerning the New Testament's supposed corruptions.

FZ even put in "..." to hide the words that are in the Bible harmony text:

"nstead of baptizing men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

None dare call this scholarship!