Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

You have some Hebrew Manuscripts you bought off of Amazon. It's not like you did a dig and found this stuff. No scholarship not Oneness, Trinitarian, or Unitarian or secular for that matter is also saying this. You are the only one. So either this is the best hid secret ever, or it's misinformation. But you keep dragging us along and you never produce any real evidence Besides you giving your word that it is as you say it is, but no evidence. So I say at this point it's highly doubtful, or otherwise you would've already produced some evidence. More than just cuz you say so. And once again it doesn't matter one way or the other, Matthew 28:19 supports are Beliefs already just the way it is, And has always been historically.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

You are the only one.

Nope I am not the only one, there are others.

here is one other

[Scott Pitta]

TV preachers are great examples of egomaniacs, not textual critics.

Did they provide any Greek manuscripts of Matthew with alternative endings of Mt. 28:19 ??

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Nope I am not the only one, there are others.
here is one other

Ken Raggio gets the most basic facts wrong. He actually thinks that Eusebius is the earliest reference when there are many earlier that affirm the traditional ending. I'll make an effort to help him with the corrections.

And I see those errors in some of his writing.

If I am going to listen to that video, I would like to know the minute spot where he specifically discusses the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. That would help a bit.

Ken Raggio Blog
Fake Rolex Christians
http://kenraggio.blogspot.com/2014/0...hristians.html

In the EARLIEST known existing versions of Matthew 28:19, early Church patriarch Eusebius quoted it saying, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in the name of Christ..." That was quoted EIGHTEEN TIMES by Eusebius in his writings between 290-339 AD.

So, the OLDEST versions of Matthew 28:19 do NOT say "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." THAT rendering, using only TITLES and not the NAME of Jesus, first appeared at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was formulated and written by Catholic theologians, not by the original Apostles or Jesus Christ Himself.

Here are references about which Ken Raggio is ignorant, because of the skewed presentations that he accepts without any checking.

Matthew 28:19 -Ante-Nicene referencing (before Eusebius) - the Ehrman textual criticism discussion
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ism-discussion

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Ignatius (110 AD)
Epistle to the Philadelphians

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD)
First Apology

Irenaeus - (2nd century)
Against Heresies

Diatessoran (Tatian, c.175 AD)

Didache (c. 2nd century)

Apostolic Teachings (2nd Century) (x references)

The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles

Tertullian - (c. 200 AD)
On Baptism.-- Chapter XIII.
Against Praxeas
Prescription against Heretics

Hippolytus (c.200 AD)
Against the Heresy of One Noetus

Cyprian (c. 230 AD)
Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
Epistle LXXII.1 To Jubaianus

The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian
Lucius of Castra Galbae
Munnulus of Girba
Euchratius of Thenae
Bishop Vincentius of Thibaris

Origen (c.250 AD)
Commentary on Romans
Origen de Principiis Book I

Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 250 AD)
A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII

Treatise Against Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop.(c.255)

Treatise on Rebaptism (c 250)

Victorinus (c.300AD)

Oneness believers who take this stance make the whole belief look foolish, as Bible correctors amd manglers. They are a stain upon the apostolic doctrine.

[diakonos]

Ok. So, when I attended a UPC at the age of 15 I got some tracts that were placed neae the off... the tithe envelopes. One of them was on Baptism. In the tract it was stated that Matt 28:19 was not in original text. I NEVER heard it preached. The pastor always used the singular name argument (name of the Father, etc.).

Ffwd 3 years later and I recall listening to a oneness debate posted on what may have been a popular apostolic site at the time. The site has ben down for many years, and I do not remember the url.
Anyway. The debate was DKB vs. Some Trinitarian Guy. At the end of the debate they allowed questions. Some man asked STG if he KNEW that Matt 28:19 was NOT the original text.

Strange, what things that trigger memories.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Anyway. The debate was DKB vs. Some Trinitarian Guy. At the end of the debate they allowed questions. Some man asked STG if he KNEW that Matt 28:19 was NOT the original text.

Strange, what things that trigger memories.

who was or is DKB?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

TV preachers are great examples of egomaniacs, not textual critics.

Did they provide any Greek manuscripts of Matthew with alternative endings of Mt. 28:19 ??

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts.
Jesus was not a Greek.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts.
Jesus was not a Greek.

Says it all, right here, folks. "Obsessed with Greek manuscripts"? Hey, I got some Golden Plates written in ancient Nephite I can sell you...

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts.
Jesus was not a Greek.

Greek (all text-lines)
Latin (Old Latin and Vulgate)
Syriac

and the various early versions:
Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Bohairic, Sahidic, Slavonic et al.

If there was substantive diversions in early versions, that would in fact be important. However, there is 100% unanimity for the traditional text.

Here is a reasonable summary:

February 22, 2018
Historical Evidence in favour of Matthew Chapter 28:19 and Response to Claims of Inauthenticity
Article by an Anonymous Contributo
http://www.asitreads.com/blog/2018/2...inauthenticity

There is no Greek manuscript of the last page of Matthew that does not include these words. None. Not a single one.

The words are found in every Old Latin (Vetus Latina/Itala) that date to before the Vulgate. This includes the Waldensian text-type of the Romaunt. They are also found in all Vulgate manuscripts.

The words are found in every Aramaic/Syriac edition including Tatian's Diatessaron (Gospel Harmony) from the second century which is likely based off of the Old Syriac (Vetus Syra) Curetonian and Synaitic gospels, the Peshitta and the later Philoxenian and Harklean redactions.

The words are found in every copy of the Boharic and Sahidic Coptic, Geez Ethipopic, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic and Saxon versions which contain the last page of Matthew's gospel.

The only outlier is a very late Hebrew manuscript (dated to 1385 A.D.) of Matthew that we will examine in its own section.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you are obsessed with Greek manuscripts.
Jesus was not a Greek.

Obsessed? Look, if we had the New Testament originally written in Sumerian, and that the Middle East spoke Sumerian, during the first century. That the Hebrew Bible was translated into Sumerian 500 years before the first century AD. That the New Testament writers quoted from that text regularly. Then we would be advocating logic that the New Testament writers were using that copy of text when they wrote the New Testament. That Sumerian was the original language of the entire New Testament. We would then be questioning you to prove that instead of Sumerian could you produce your so called Hebrew manuscripts. In turn you would then tell us that Jesus wasn't Sumerian, and that we were obsessed with Sumerian. Just place any ancient language within the scenario I described. You obviously are doing a little Psychological projecting here. Because one can see that you are obsessed with Hebrew? Looking at Jesus as some super Jew, more than the Christ, the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world?


Jesus was indeed Judean, but He was part of an enormous Greek Roman world. Went to Egypt as a small child where much of the Hellenized Judean Diaspora were located. He quoted from a Greek LXX. Jesus also word plays in Greek, once to Peter, and another time to a Syrophoenician woman. I love you, and consider you a friend. But must strongly advise you that what you believe in isn't remotely logical. 2,000 plus years He has been called by the name Iesous/Jesus and we all came into the church through that name. Reading a 100% GREEK (translated into your language of choice. English, Italian, Spanish, German) New Testament. Hebrew Onlyism is a Matrix which you may never wake up from.