Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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/atonemen...beuoft/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:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

"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/atonemen...shuoft/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]

Emphasis added:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

... 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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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]

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.

[Scott Pitta]

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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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?