Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Scott Pitta]

Copyists copy manuscripts. Sometimes they edit them. In the case of Mt. 28:19, they simply copied what was written. Had there been editing, there would have been variation in the manuscripts. But there is none.

Copyists simply copy it down. Some copyists edit. Or others edited the finished work.

Has FZ studied the copyist behavior of the manuscripts of Matthew ??

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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

So you are the judge of what I do understand?

Yes, you write and the others judge. It is clear you do not understand. You say "all the manuscripts are wrong" but on what basis? Not a textual basis, that's for sure. You have no text, no manuscript, that reads the way you want it to read. So, you just rewrite the Bible to suit your fancy. Just like the JWs and the Sacred Namers and most other cults.

I believe what is written. You write what you believe. Big difference in the two approaches.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian,

This is the second time you have placed this errant section on this thread.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword p.7

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian ...

And I answered with two detailed contiguous posts here:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I doubt that you ever looked at this work, and once again it looks like plagiarism. (continues)

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

... It does look like Heitmüller is acknowledging power in the name of Jesus! And that water baptism in Jesus name is a major element.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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

And I agree.
And thus the thread title is wrong, and many of your posts.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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

Quite an admission.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Copyists copy manuscripts. Sometimes they edit them. In the case of Mt. 28:19, they simply copied what was written. Had there been editing, there would have been variation in the manuscripts. But there is none.

Copyists simply copy it down. Some copyists edit. Or others edited the finished work.

Has FZ studied the copyist behavior of the manuscripts of Matthew ??

Very good point

Harry Morse would be proud.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I agree.
And thus the thread title is wrong, and many of your posts.

Quite an admission.

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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes, you write and the others judge. It is clear you do not understand.

You say "all the manuscripts are wrong" but on what basis?

Not a textual basis, that's for sure. You have no text, no manuscript, that reads the way you want it to read. So, you just rewrite the Bible to suit your fancy. Just like the JWs and the Sacred Namers and most other cults.

I believe what is written. You write what you believe. Big difference in the two approaches.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ's argument is dying a slow and painful death.

True. However, since this is about the fifth thread on AFF, it has been very helpful as a learning experience.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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?

True, he has mixed up the different arguments. Plus, he continually quotes people who want to snip out multiple verses from the ending of Matthew. He ignores that element of their presentation, hiding it from the readers.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Because FZ, knows that the argument against the traditional Matthew 28:19 is futile, and lacks good strong evidence.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a sincerely held belief that the Matthew words should be different. However, that belief is intermingled with the financial element of selling books, and the personal affirmation of his beliefs, the i.e. the difficulty to change a view he has held for many years.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

FZ is having difficulty tailoring his message for his audience .

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

True. However, since this is about the fifth thread on AFF, it has been very helpful as a learning experience.

Yes, I totally agree. But as I said originally, the original topic that FZ was trying to prove is dying on the vine. What I see is that mostly this target audience are those who are wanting to be Judaized in their Christianity. They are shaloamers, Yeshuites, Yahwists who are more focused on a Medieval Rabbinical experience, or more like an MGM Moses type of Churchness. Where all sides of Judaism glances over at and winces.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

True, he has mixed up the different arguments. Plus, he continually quotes people who want to snip out multiple verses from the ending of Matthew. He ignores that element of their presentation, hiding it from the readers.

Yes, this leads the reader to believe that he also shares those views. So, when I point out to FZ that he has the Jefferson approach, he denies. Yet, that is confusing and ends up impeaching the witnesses he is offering to us.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a sincerely held belief that the Matthew words should be different.

While being gracious, still doesn't negate that FZ is having a monumental proving the original thought of the thread. He knows it.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

However, that belief is intermingled with the financial element of selling books, and the personal affirmation of his beliefs, the i.e. the difficulty to change a view he has held for many years.

I agree with the latter may be in all of us. It takes great personal strength to see inwardly and shake ourselves awake. FZ is a pretty smart sincere brother, and I pray that we all come to the knowledge of truth.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

FZ is having difficulty tailoring his message for his audience .

That is quite obvious.

[FlamingZword]

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

Please in your responses, avoid citing that guy Steven Avery, he is not a part of our discussions, I do not read his negative comments and I am not interested in reading them from a second source either.

If you keep on citing that guy I might just not engage in any further honest positive discussions here.