Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Et tu Brutus?I am surprised that you give up so easily. I have tons of evidence and information, and you already have surrendered to me. as, John Paul Jones said "I have not yet begun to fight!" I have so much ammunition, enough to fight WWWIII and I shoot just a few BBs and you are already crying uncle?

This is rather pitiful.

It might make more sense to end the thread on the ethical grounds.
Es suficiente.

We have been getting repeats, anyway.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you are getting the same attitude of those folks which refuse many of our teachings.Think about this;

You teach the sabbath and I teach the Sabbath, do people readily accept the sabbath teaching?

You teach the oneness of God and I teach the oneness of God, do people readily accept the oneness of God?

You teach baptism in the name of Jesus and I teach baptism in the name of Jesus, do people readily accept baptism in the name of Jesus?

I was going to include partial preterism, in this list, but I think that is bro Blume and bro Benicasa.

but the point is that you and I teach many similar doctrines, yet we also encounter resistance when teaching those other doctrines.

I can pull up book chapter and verse for EVERY THING I TEACH, because I ONLY teach what I have book chapter and verse for. On this subject, however, you have NO TEXT. Reminder, the issue isn't about what the Name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is. The issue is what are the words of Scripture.

Remove Matthew 28:19, and you lose the very thing that revealed Jesus' name baptism to me. Since those are BIBLE, book, chapter, and verse, I'm not interested in a bunch of misrepresentations meant to attack the actual RECEIVED TEXT.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you are getting the same attitude of those folks which refuse many of our teachings.Think about this;

You teach the sabbath and I teach the Sabbath, do people readily accept the sabbath teaching?

You teach the oneness of God and I teach the oneness of God, do people readily accept the oneness of God?

You teach baptism in the name of Jesus and I teach baptism in the name of Jesus, do people readily accept baptism in the name of Jesus?

I was going to include partial preterism, in this list, but I think that is bro Blume and bro Benicasa.

but the point is that you and I teach many similar doctrines, yet we also encounter resistance when teaching those other doctrines.

FZ, we all can believe what we believe in unity. Eschatology, Soteriology, Theology, but you are dabbling in textual criticism. Your dabbling is through shear emotional pleading. “Hey guys, you are all Apostolics! So, why not get rid of verses that seem too Trinitarian!!!” That isn’t what one should call scholarship.
You point out that we believe X, Y, and Z therefore we should clip away at an ancient document? Pull a stunt that has been employed by every cult since day one? No, sorry my old friend, but that bird don’t fly.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I can pull up book chapter and verse for EVERY THING I TEACH, because I ONLY teach what I have book chapter and verse for. On this subject, however, you have NO TEXT. Reminder, the issue isn't about what the Name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is. The issue is what are the words of Scripture.

Remove Matthew 28:19, and you lose the very thing that revealed Jesus' name baptism to me. Since those are BIBLE, book, chapter, and verse, I'm not interested in a bunch of misrepresentations meant to attack the actual RECEIVED TEXT.

Amen!!!! Me too!!!

Matthew 28:19 is the verse that gave me revelation on One God.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

I realize you give book title and author citations, but did you find these tomes on your own, read them yourself, and copy their text so as to share the quotes here, or did you discover these quotes in other sources, other books by other authors, and not give credit to where you actually found them?

And as far as Steve is concerned, I'm not dealing with him on this issue. I am dealing with you.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I realize you give book title and author citations, but did you find these tomes on your own, read them yourself, and copy their text so as to share the quotes here, or did you discover these quotes in other sources, other books by other authors, and not give credit to where you actually found them?

And as far as Steve is concerned, I'm not dealing with him on this issue. I am dealing with you.

I have done over 10 years of research, and done a lot of hard work gathering information, there is no way I can remember every single place where I copied a citation straight from a book or something that was e-mailed to me from a friendly source. I have a lot of information. That is why I copied the name of the book, the Author, the year, and even the page number so I could reference it. I have never claimed to be the originator for any quotation.

But I must say this.
I have preached for over 35 years baptism in the name of Jesus and I had my own church, so I guess that makes me an "Elder"
Did not Paul said that against an "Elder" accept no accusation, except it be by the mouth of two witnesses.

That guy has said some very horrible things about me.
I am a christian minister, not a doormat, for him to speak to me in such a vitriolic manner, is just not right,
but I have not repaid evil with evil or insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)

For I know whom I have believed who said
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
and Do not repay anyone evil for evil (Romans 12:17)

Look at what he posted and tell me,
Would you accept someone speaking to you in such a negative way?

[FlamingZword]

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (G) Rhenish Museum of Philology (1903) pp. 38-41 by Professor of Philology Hermann Karl Usener, calls Matthew 28:19 an acknowledged forgery.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I have done over 10 years of research, and done a lot of hard work gathering information, there is no way I can remember every single place where I copied a citation straight from a book or something that was e-mailed to me from a friendly source. I have a lot of information. That is why I copied the name of the book, the Author, the year, and even the page number so I could reference it. I have never claimed to be the originator for any quotation.

But I must say this.
I have preached for over 35 years baptism in the name of Jesus and I had my own church, so I guess that makes me an "Elder"
Did not Paul said that against an "Elder" accept no accusation, except it be by the mouth of two witnesses.

That guy has said some very horrible things about me.
I am a christian minister, not a doormat, for him to speak to me in such a vitriolic manner, is just not right,
but I have not repaid evil with evil or insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)

For I know whom I have believed who said
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
and Do not repay anyone evil for evil (Romans 12:17)

Look at what he posted and tell me,
Would you accept someone speaking to you in such a negative way?

Then please explain how Greek verses do not work in Hebrew or Aramaic. Is Peter the foundation of the Church? Was the Syrophoenician (Greek speaker) a dog (any kind) or a little yapping, begging dog which ate table scraps? Is it impossible for camels to go through the eye of a needle, or a camel? Are we not to swallow ropes and strain gnats, or strain gnats and not swallow camels? Was Peter's brother named Adam, or Andrew? What is Phillip's Hebrew name? Since his name has no Hebrew or Aramaic origin? Nicodemus? His name actually has zero meaning in Hebrew, but has meaning in Greek. But since you been researching this for 10 years you will be able to easily answer me.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie (G) Rhenish Museum of Philology (1903) pp. 38-41 by Professor of Philology Hermann Karl Usener, calls Matthew 28:19 an acknowledged forgery.

Neither FZ nor I know what Usener said about the verse, and the phrase, since he is working with unknown secondary or tertiary sources. Non-scholarship. I tend to doubt that Usener did much special analysis on Matthew 28:19 at all, although he was writing right after the Conybeare paper, so it is likely to have gotten some notice. Usener did put forth odd views on the birth narratives, the virgin birth, water baptism and he was something of a Trinity philosopher, mentioned in the Warfield book on that topic.

So let us look a bit at:

Hermann Karl Usener (1834-1905)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Usener

The mythicist William Benjamin Smith uses him as a reference:

accounts of the baptism of Jesus are entirely fictive .. Surely no one regards Matt xi 1-19, Luke vii 18-35, as historic

Open Court (1914)
https://books.google.com/books?id=nLsNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA39

Werner Georg Kummel tells us Usener is of the "ethnological school" and researches the "mythic tales" involving the New Testament.

The New Testament The History of the Investigation of its Problems (c. 1957)
http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF...Invest~79B.pdf

Bernard Aubert writing on J. Gresham Machen's famous The Virgin Birth of Christ tells us that Hermann Usener considered the biblical infancy narratives “to be legend”, and he is of the History of Religion School
https://uniocc.com/account/download_journal/3

Herman Bavinck writing c. 1910 in Dutch in Reformed Dogmatics, tells us that Usener saw Matthew 28:19 as "derived from pagan speculation", a view countered by Harnack, who supports Jewish-Christian origin.

Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation (2008)
By Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, John Vriend
https://books.google.com/books?id=PP3dswxEfM8C&pg=PA502

No mention of "forgery".

Some final references for now, will be from:

The Historical Evidence of the Virgin Birth (1920)
Vincent Taylor
http://books.google.com/books?id=huzYAAAAMAAJ
http://www.archive.org/details/histo...viden003240mbp
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54858/54858-pdf.pdf

p. 24 "deny that the Virgin Birth was an original element in the Third Gospel, but also that St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, ever taught that doctrine
p. 124 on the virgin birth as from "non-Christian myths"
p. 79 is humorous as Usener reconstructs the real virgin birth narrative writing.
See also p. 55:
https://books.google.com/books?id=huzYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA55

Usener writes (col. 3349): ‘To Joh. Hillmann (JPT. 17, aai flf.) belongs the merit of having conclusively shown that the two verses in Lk. (i. 34 f.), the only verses in the Third Gospel in which the supernatural birth of Jesus of the Virgin Mary is stated, are
incompatible with the entire representation of the rest of chaps, i and ii, and thus must have been interpolated by a redactor'.

Overall, worthless for our Matthew 28:19 studies, shoddy scholarship once again. However this leads to some interesting historical studies, such as Bible belief vs. mythicist error.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I have done over 10 years of research, and done a lot of hard work gathering information, there is no way I can remember every single place where I copied a citation straight from a book or something that was e-mailed to me from a friendly source. I have a lot of information. That is why I copied the name of the book, the Author, the year, and even the page number so I could reference it. I have never claimed to be the originator for any quotation.

But I must say this.
I have preached for over 35 years baptism in the name of Jesus and I had my own church, so I guess that makes me an "Elder"
Did not Paul said that against an "Elder" accept no accusation, except it be by the mouth of two witnesses.

That guy has said some very horrible things about me.
I am a christian minister, not a doormat, for him to speak to me in such a vitriolic manner, is just not right,
but I have not repaid evil with evil or insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)

For I know whom I have believed who said
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
and Do not repay anyone evil for evil (Romans 12:17)

Look at what he posted and tell me,
Would you accept someone speaking to you in such a negative way?

If you have only received some of the quotes you've used here as they come in from emails or other friendly sources, but you have not independently verified them yourself to see if they are accurate, then Steve is correct, it is poor scholarship.

Steve and I have clashed in a few areas here at AFF, but if he demonstrated that I was in error on a certain point, I acknowledged the correction and discarded the point I was trying to make.

The fact is, you often learn more by the people who don't agree with you, and are critical of your stated positions, then from the ones that simply nod and say nothing. I think you should give Steve some benefit of the doubt.