Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I have begun a new thread called "The traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation" it is in the general debate and discussion topics page.

In that new thread I will slowly but surely will show that it is in deed a changed scripture.

I will be giving some of my information in small chunks so people will not choke.

The Saga continues... Still not one shred of proof after 2 years and 50 + pages on this thread, now it's time for the sequel he is ready to unleash the Revelation. Coming to a theatre near you..

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

People will not choke?

You still never discuss the real problem of your textual criticism. If one verse was added what about all the others? Why can't you explain the technical problems concerning the impossibility of translating certain verses of Matthew into Hebrew?

I am not interested in all the others.
I am only exclusively interested in Matthew 28:19, that's it.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

The Saga continues... Still not one shred of proof after 2 years and 50 + pages on this thread, now it's time for the sequel he is ready to unleash the Revelation. Coming to a theatre near you..

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

You see evolutionists will not accept any proofs from Christians, no matter what kind they are.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

This shows that you approach this issue with delusions.

If you were rational, you might claim that you have some evidences, at best. And we would tell you that the evidences are minuscule, compared to the massive evidences for the traditional ending. A real discussion.

Talking of supposed "proofs", besides being delusionary, is a bit irritating to those who like to have sensible discussion.

Plus you have your major scholarship non-credibility problem. And you do not make corrections even when they are shown to you carefully. Thus, your references are largely worthless.

Plus, you have this habit of quoting tons of liberals and unbelievers who theorized that Matthew's ending was not authentic, usually attacking full verses. As if that is relevant.

Plus, you have the trickster problem of not even following the wording of Eusebius, ShemTob, etc.

It is fun to take your errors, and then learn, study and correct the scholarship. So as the springboard to real learning, I try to make some sense out of your spaghetti scholarship.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1

FZ has totally mangled this reference.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

More problems of not having read the section, misrepresentation and apparent plagiarism.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I do not think FZ can give you an answer. He is plagiarizing secondary and tertiary sources and on the Hastings quotes they are a total mess, with missing "..." and various inserted parenthesis by who knows who, and very unclear sources.

That quote above could be from a Baptism article, or Trinity, or possibly Sacraments.
FZ is including two different editions, and the Hastings Bible Dictionary quotes he gives could include snippets from:

1898 - Alfred Plummer, Baptism
1909 - Charles Archibald Anderson Scott, Baptism
1910 - Kirsopp Lake, Baptism (Early Christians), (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings)
1963 - Andrew Bruce Davidson, Trinity (possibly)

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

We will switch gears a bit here from the FZ references to general referencing.

Some of the Hastings references have given a page number without a year, title or name of author. ...

A tract accredited to Nathaniel Andrew Urshan, and published by Harvestime, had some mangled quotes: ... Various changes in this doctored "quote" have greatly distorted the history. ... You can see that this 2002 book by Bruce Tucker properly ripped to shreds some of the improper citation techniques, with the Hastings material being center-stage.

...

And none of this misquoting and other deceptive and false citation methods were at all necessary. They do leave a scholastic stain. Has the current material been checked? Have the perps, or their spiritual heirs, ever given a public acknowledgment, correction and apology? What current historical material from Oneness sources can truly be trusted as accurate? Do we have to check books like:

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I am not interested in all the others.

I am only exclusively interested in Matthew 28:19, that's it.

Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't matter what you are interested in or not. Life is about what is logically the outcome, or illogically the outcome. You choose. By you stating that the original wording of Matthew 28:19 is some how been added. You automatically bring doubt on the entire Gospel document. Also you have offered us the idea that Matthew was originally penned entirely in the Hebrew language. Therefore you should be easily able to answer my questions on some of the problems. Which are that some verses in Matthew cannot possibly translated into Hebrew. While it seems to be that you must be surrounded in your own private Idaho by yes men and women. You, therefore continue in live with your head buried in the ecclesiastical sand. I pray that you would consider your lack of understanding of these simple illogical results of your quest.

Your friend ( I hope)

Brother B

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Oh I have plenty of proofs

, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

You see evolutionists will not accept any proofs from Christians, no matter what kind they are.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Oh I have plenty of proofs, the point is will you accept the proofs, that I present?

You see evolutionists will not accept any proofs from Christians, no matter what kind they are.

What in Tarnation does evolutionists of all things have to do with this topic? Evolutionists wouldn't accept the Bible at all, much less Matthew 28:19?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You captured my exact reaction..

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

What in Tarnation does evolutionists of all things have to do with this topic? Evolutionists wouldn't accept the Bible at all, much less Matthew 28:19?

My point is simply that some people will not accept any evidence whatsoever, their mind is already made up and they will believe whatever it is they believe despite any evidence to the contrary.