Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, do you know what is really important about the German theologians? Is that the were heavily opinionated. While that may not be a bad thing at times, these guys had some wild ideas. There was German theologians who were scholars in Christianity. Yet, with their Christian studies they were also scholars of "religions." Surprisingly for us, Hinduism and Judaism.

Well today there any many ministers who study other religions besides Christianity, yet they still teach baptism in the name of Jesus.

I myself have studied some other religions too, a little bit of Mormonism (early on my christian walk, I was kind of favorable to them, until I learned more of the Bible), I have also studied some of Jehovah's witnesses theology and even some of Islam.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

the realization that Mat 28:19 should say "in my name"

An interesting point that FZ tries to keep in the background is that this is NOT in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew.

This is direct from the 1995 2nd edition. p. 151

Hebrew Gospel of MATTHEW by George Howard - Part One.pdf https://www.academia.edu/32013676/He...-_Part_One.pdf

18 Jesus drew near to them and said to them:
To me has been given all power in heaven and earth
19 Go
20 and (teach) them to carry out all the things
which I have commanded you forever.

So there is no Bible ms. support for his rendering in any language at all.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I am sure you have plenty of food in your house, would you feed all that food to your child in one meal?

One meal at a time, so you will not choke and have time to digest it.
Do you even read the posts and masticate them or you simply look at them and like a precocious brat simply throw them into the ground.

Admit it, there is no evidence for your proposed change. I've read your posts. You misquote, misattributed, and misrepresent just about every one of them. How hard is this to understand? Just point us to the MANUSCRIPTS THAT SAY WHAT YOU SAY.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

So there is no Bible ms. support for his rendering in any language at all.

Exactly. Case closed.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

FZ, how do you plead?

FZ tried to plead the fifth amendment, that if he spoke he might intend to incriminate himself.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

... I will simply refuse to answer this, because you are citing a person who is totally negative and which I have no dealings with, I have no interest in anything this person says. So no I will not answer, and remember that in a court of law, a refusal to answer can not be taken as a no or as a yes.

In a civil case, unlike a criminal case, in the USA and most states, you are totally allowed to make an "adverse inference" when someone pleads the fifth. Even more so in a simple case of ethics and integrity, as here, where the only damage would be a hit to the scholarship reputation. More info on the court aspect here:

What happens if you take the Fifth in a civil case?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-a-civil-case/

And this is just a discussion forum, no lawsuits are involved, it is simply a question of ethics and integrity.

Silence, and no defense, and no response, strongly indicates guilt when such clear evidence has been presented.

And if you look closely at the many examples given in this thread, you will see "guilty as charged" for the shoddy scholarship, quote doctoring, lack of proper sourcing, use of secondary and terrtiary sources when the primary is available, and plagiarism. Basically his only defense is that he inherited some of the deceptive work from Clinton D. Willis and others. See the Tim Hegg paper on the Clinton Willis manipulations, also see the jfrog post here on a former thread, writing to FZ. Nothing has received any response, afawk.

FZ is so brazen in this scholastic dishonesty that he does not even make corrections to false information, even when it has been presented and the primary source information is readily available.

As for my being "negative", that is largely a result of spending time dissecting the shoddy scholarship.

And I have tried to turn it to good by learning more about the scholars and views, even those German liberals. I am more used to studying the Believing believing scholars of the 1700s and many in the1800s, so this has been a change of pace. My experience on this came largely out of trying to get a good sense of why the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses verse was challenged, and how the pure Bible verse was defended.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Well today there any many ministers who study other religions besides Christianity, yet they still teach baptism in the name of Jesus.

I myself have studied some other religions too, a little bit of Mormonism (early on my christian walk, I was kind of favorable to them, until I learned more of the Bible), I have also studied some of Jehovah's witnesses theology and even some of Islam.

FZ, you are missing the point I’m trying to make. With the German theologians, they blended some things together. Hindu thought in Christian thought. Babylonian Talmudic Judaism understanding into the New Testament. Some German scholars actually believed Jesus followed Talmud, and taught Talmud.
Therefore believing some verses that contradicted Talmud to be spurious.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Dear Votivesoul, I have a lot of respect from you, but I will simply refuse to answer this, because you are citing a person who is totally negative and which I have no dealings with, I have no interest in anything this person says.

So no I will not answer, and remember that in a court of law, a refusal to answer can not be taken as a no or as a yes.

FZ, although I posted my question under my own screen name, and not under the Admin screen name, the fact is, you are being accused openly of breaking some very important forum rules. A lot of evidence has been presented which strongly supports that accusation.

To simply ignore it is your choice, but it's important to keep your name unsullied from such accusations. If you have taken these quotes from other writers, just say so, and be sure to site those writers next time, whenever necessary to do so.

And while I appreciate your respect for me, if you are plagiarizing, it demonstrates a lack of respect on your part.

So, please just answer, not to Steve, but for me: are you quoting from but not citing other writers?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Circumstantial evidence doesn't hold up in court. If you have the trump card, just play out your best argument and change the world, already.

Well I worked for the Los Angeles District Attorney for a while, doing research so I am kind of familiar with gathering evidence.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Admit it, there is no evidence for your proposed change. I've read your posts. You misquote, misattributed, and misrepresent just about every one of them. How hard is this to understand? Just point us to the MANUSCRIPTS THAT SAY WHAT YOU SAY.

As a person who actually worked for a District attorney, I do understand that it is hard to win a murder case where the perpetrator destroys the body, which serves as evidence of the deed done, and the case must be won without the body present, but some prosecutors have done it. The state of Iowa has a database of 469 "no body" murder trials. So yes a trial can he conducted without the body.

and yes the lack of a Greek manuscript does not invalidate this case at all.
Of course you refuse to accept the Shem Tob as a valid manuscript, which is kind of self-serving on your part, but of course there are some who disagree with your assessment.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

FZ, although I posted my question under my own screen name, and not under the Admin screen name, the fact is, you are being accused openly of breaking some very important forum rules. A lot of evidence has been presented which strongly supports that accusation.

To simply ignore it is your choice, but it's important to keep your name unsullied from such accusations. If you have taken these quotes from other writers, just say so, and be sure to site those writers next time, whenever necessary to do so.

And while I appreciate your respect for me, if you are plagiarizing, it demonstrates a lack of respect on your part.

So, please just answer, not to Steve, but for me: are you quoting from but not citing other writers?

It is self-evident that I am quoting from books written by others, the post themselves give the name of the books, the authors, the date and even the page numbers. that is perfectly legitimate in any arguments.
so if anyone has accused me of anything, they have raised false accusations, which breaks the law of God, "you shall not raise a false witness."

Go back to all my posts and read that I give the full data of where I got my information and you will see that perhaps it is someone else who is raising false accusations.
I am used to false accusations from trinitarians, but I am surprised that someone who claims to be oneness would sink so low.

P.S. Please keep the name of that negative individual out of our discussions, I totally ignore anything that he says, and do not bother to read his posts, so I am not surprised he does not like that.