Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by 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.

I say Amen, and I would guess that even Harry Morse would say Amen.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by 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.

Arthur Chushman McGiffert (1861-1933)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Cushman_McGiffert

Arthur Cushman McGiffert (Presbyterian, United States, 1900)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...d_States,_1900)

a direct onslaught on the very basis of Reformed and, indeed, of the whole Protestant theology... He worked on the basic assumption that historical change makes all religious teaching relative and there is no continuing "essence" of Christian history.

Mcgiffert is skeptical of the virgin birth as an added-on story.

. The belief in the virgin birth, though certainly not common in the earliest days, had become widespread before the end of the first century, as is shown by the gospels of Matthew and Luke and by the epistles of Ignatius, and was a part of the general faith of the church before the Old Roman Symbol was framed.. p. 17, also p. 34

When it comes to the baptism he conjectures a replacement for the words of Matthew from Jesus:

I have said that the creed is an enlargement of the baptismal formula, and it is commonly, I may say universally assumed that it is an enlargement of the formula found in Matt, xxviii. 19: "Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But I think it can be shown, though I cannot stop to discuss the matter here, that the formula upon which it is based was rather "Into the name of God and of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit" a formula which, as I think it can also be shown, is older than the triune formula of Matthew. It is found in 2 Cor. xiii. 13 as a formula of benediction, and its use in Rome in the middle of the second century in connection with baptism is testified to by Justin Martyr, who throws more light than any other father upon the conditions existing in Rome just before the time when the creed originated.1 p. 19

More meanderings are in Chapter VI, p. 175-186.

The Apostles' Creed: Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation (1902)
By Arthur Cushman McGiffert
The Old Roman Symbol and the Baptism Forumula
https://books.google.com/books?id=avaJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA175

[Steven Avery]

Much of this post is incomprehensible, however one point can be made, ignoring the confusing reference to translating to Hebrew.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

What a wonderful teaching opportunity and tool.

When I was taught this truth, it was an amazing confirmation and revelation. We went carefully over every Acts baptism verse and saw the harmony with the words in Matthew. Also we studied the references in the Epistles, and appreciated every connected Bible verse.

The harmony of the Bible is there knit together to help us learn, and discern our hearts.

The mangling of Matthew 28:19 is a worthless enterprise.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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,

You say it is not textually accurate, yet all the texts and manuscripts have it, ZERO manuscripts have your proposed alternative readings.

Therefore it is clear YOU are the one who does not "understand the difference".

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You say it is not textually accurate, yet all the texts and manuscripts have it, ZERO manuscripts have your proposed alternative readings. Therefore it is clear YOU are the one who does not "understand the difference".

Good catch.

And, if you read carefully, none of these five sections are accurate and sensible.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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

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.

If other parts of Matthew have been tampered with, I have no idea, nor does it concerns me at this point. If others raise some issues with other texts, I will leave that for them to demonstrate their evidence for such beliefs.

However this particular text does interest me, because there is plenty of evidence that it was tampered with in the translation from Hebrew into Greek.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If other parts of Matthew have been tampered with, I have no idea, nor does it concerns me at this point. If others raise some issues with other texts, I will leave that for them to demonstrate their evidence for such beliefs.

You quote many people who want to chop up three to five verses at the end of Matthew, and the last 12 verses of Mark, to start. Do you accept their arguments?

In many cases, though, you never read the sources, you simply plagiarized from secondary and tertiary sources.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

Feelings?? I have already deny such feelings, but you simply refused to believe me. If you want to believe that about my feelings go ahead, nothing is stopping you, but that is your own personal feelings about my feelings. kind of amazing that you can feel my feelings.

about Matthew 28:19 being a Trinitarian verse, that is baloney, not even in the traditional phrase is it Trinitarian.

For years and years since 1983 and even now, I still use the traditional text to teach baptism in the name of Jesus and the Oneness of God. I think all that bacon you have eaten has gone to your head. easy on that bacon brother.

I just don't believe that text was accurately translated from Hebrew into Greek.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You say it is not textually accurate, yet all the texts and manuscripts have it, ZERO manuscripts have your proposed alternative readings.

Therefore it is clear YOU are the one who does not "understand the difference".

all the manuscripts have it because they simply copied it down.

So you are the judge of what I do understand?

[FlamingZword]

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian, calls Matthew 28:19 spurious and says: “It would be superfluous to show all over again that the direct institution of baptism through Jesus, as it is recounted in Mt 28, is historically untenable.” In this book Doctor Heitmüller argues from linguistics that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt and that the only linguistic text that would be correct is “in the name of Jesus.”