Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I went back to just the first 10 pages and collected a few things. Here they are

These are statements directed to me by one person.

"Thanks for the warning that textual apostates are active in apostolic circles."

So I am a textual apostate., OK I have been called much worse.

"you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony."

perhaps I do, just a simple put down.

""exact citations" is a deception, form you,"

So now I am a deceiver, OK I have been called a lying heretic by trinitarians.

"Your "scholarship" is such a mess "

just another regular put down

"you are not engaged in sincere and honest study or scholarship."

OK so I am not sincere and I am dishonest

"Why? Simply because you are not doing scholarship."

OK that is nice judgement of what I am doing.

"You claimed 100+ allusions. Simply a fabrication."

So now I resort to fabrications.

And this is only from just a small number of pages, would you call this respect?

FZ, what is wrong with what has been said concerning you? These are perceptions which are followed after one reads what you believe. You know we all have had the same things said about us throughout the years we have been posting. We have all had a turn at the wheel. These things are expected to happen when one criticises our beliefs. Textual Criticism makes Eschatology look like a joke. Yet, Textual Criticism needs to have real evidence, to be proven. With all due respect for our friendship, you don't have any evidence. Other than the writings of early Textual Critics who not only doubted the original Matthew 28:19 but whole entire chapters. Even books, like 2 Thessalonians. My plea is that before you take your show on the road, you shouldve had all this figured out first.

With love

In Jesus name

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

FZ, what is wrong with what has been said concerning you? These are perceptions which are followed after one reads what you believe. You know we all have had the same things said about us throughout the years we have been posting. We have all had a turn at the wheel. These things are expected to happen when one criticises our beliefs. Textual Criticism makes Eschatology look like a joke. Yet, Textual Criticism needs to have real evidence, to be proven. With all due respect for our friendship, you don't have any evidence. Other than the writings of early Textual Critics who not only doubted the original Matthew 28:19 but whole entire chapters. Even books, like 2 Thessalonians. My plea is that before you take your show on the road, you shouldve had all this figured out first.

With love

In Jesus name

Yes I know about taking a turn at the wheel

Well, I have been called much worse names by Trinitarians, because I preached baptism in the name of Jesus, so I am kind of used to being called names and being told I am a liar, a heretic, and an apostate.
I got ejected from many trinitarian forums for debating and calling the trinity a false doctrine. so I am perfectly OK with people rejecting my ideas.

Of course I was not expecting Apostolics to accept these ideas with open arms, but perhaps I was expecting the debating atmosphere, to be a little less vitriolic, without the name calling, but I guess you are right, I should have figured out the reaction would be about the same.

Live and learn.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yes I know about taking a turn at the wheel

Well, I have been called much worse names by Trinitarians, because I preached baptism in the name of Jesus, so I am kind of used to being called names and being told I am a liar, a heretic, and an apostate.
I got ejected from many trinitarian forums for debating and calling the trinity a false doctrine. so I am perfectly OK with people rejecting my ideas.

Of course I was not expecting Apostolics to accept these ideas with open arms, but perhaps I was expecting the debating atmosphere, to be a little less vitriolic, without the name calling, but I guess you are right, I should have figured out the reaction would be about the same.

Live and learn.

Paul prayed thrice to have the thorn taken away. His grace is all we need to get through and embrace the thorn.

[Esaias]

I'm still waiting to see the manuscript evidence. So far, across several threads, none has been offered. Just reams of often misquoted citations from men who generally think the Bible is chock full of errors and mythology.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm still waiting to see the manuscript evidence. So far, across several threads, none has been offered. Just reams of often misquoted citations from men who generally think the Bible is chock full of errors and mythology.

Therein lies the rub. FZ, this is the problem, and obstacle for us. You told us in another thread (the new one you started) that some things you didn't really know. Therefore you should go back to the woodshed and stay there until you take your show on the road. You compared us with Trinitarians. We aren't blind Trinitarians unwilling to learn, therefore as Trinitarians lashing out at what they believe to be heresy. I already gave you my view on all of this in this very thread. If the traditional, original Greek Matthew 28:19 is spurious, then what else is botched up? It is that simple. If we have a Greek forgery with one error, then logically there should be at least two or three others? Wouldn't you agree? The people you have quoted not only believe Matthew 29:19 to be bogus but whole books in the New Testament. Where does it end? Agostic, and Atheist like Bart Ehrman.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm still waiting to see the manuscript evidence. So far, across several threads, none has been offered. Just reams of often misquoted citations from men who generally think the Bible is chock full of errors and mythology.

Regarding that of the often misquoted citations, not all of them were misquoted citations. OK maybe I am at fault for not reviewing more carefully some of the citations I received from friendly sources.

I combined what they sent me with what I am found in my own research, so now I will have to go back and recheck each one of those citations.
If I had kept them separate I would have less work to do.

but no problem, I know that probably half or more of my citations are correct, so this will just serve as a lesson.

Live and learn.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Therein lies the rub. FZ, this is the problem, and obstacle for us. You told us in another thread (the new one you started) that some things you didn't really know. Therefore you should go back to the woodshed and stay there until you take your show on the road. You compared us with Trinitarians. We aren't blind Trinitarians unwilling to learn, therefore as Trinitarians lashing out at what they believe to be heresy. I already gave you my view on all of this in this very thread. If the traditional, original Greek Matthew 28:19 is spurious, then what else is botched up? It is that simple. If we have a Greek forgery with one error, then logically there should be at least two or three others? Wouldn't you agree? The people you have quoted not only believe Matthew 29:19 to be bogus but whole books in the New Testament. Where does it end? Agostic, and Atheist like Bart Ehrman.

ah the slippery slope argument, pretty good.
you paid attention in the debate class.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Regarding that of the often misquoted citations, not all of them were misquoted citations. OK maybe I am at fault for not reviewing more carefully some of the citations I received from friendly sources.

I combined what they sent me with what I am found in my own research, so now I will have to go back and recheck each one of those citations.
If I had kept them separate I would have less work to do.

but no problem, I know that probably half or more of my citations are correct, so this will just serve as a lesson.

Live and learn.

If some friendly sources started giving you "evidence" that your wife was cheating on you, I'm sure you would go over EVERY JOT AND TITTLE with a fine toothed comb, like maybe haul out the electron microscopes, spend all your money on hiring private detectives to verify the truth. AND, not that these efforts would be spent trying to "catch" your wife, but rather they would be spent trying to vindicate her honour. Why? Because you would never doubt her one single bit unless and until OVERWHELMING AND UNDENIABLE evidence was presented, and EVEN THEN you'd do everything in your power to prove it wrong and vindicate the love of your life.

How much MORE diligent and scrupulous should we be when someone suggests to us to start DOUBTING THE VERY WORDS OF SCRIPTURE?

This is why most of us here aren't impressed with the quotes you are giving us. WHERE'S THE PROOF? We need something more than a bunch of infidels telling us our Bible is wrong. Where is the manuscript evidence?

All the manuscripts, all the ones GOD HAS PRESERVED FOR US TO GO BY, read a certain way, which is NOT the way you are telling us is the correct reading. Do you see the issue, then? The Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts. If they all agree in a particular reading, THAT'S THE READING WE GO BY. In those places where manuscripts differ, we must be studious to determine which is the authentic, original reading. BUT EITHER WAY WE ARE WORKING WITH KNOWN EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS.

What you are doing is taking people's CLAIMS and SPECULATIONS and saying we need to CHANGE THE BIBLE to match them, when those same people can't even remotely agree on how it should read! And they have no TEXTS to support their claims. The logical, rational conclusion is the claims are UNFOUNDED.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

ah the slippery slope argument, pretty good.
you paid attention in the debate class.

With love and utmost care I'm posting this post to you. Please notice the dig you just gave me. Paying attention in debate class? REALLY? OK, no problem. I just wanted to point this out. Brother, now we know you can do it with ease, even when someone is leveling with you. So, no need to start threads with conditions of how we need to hold a discussion with you. Because you are a man, you are a preacher, and you are convinced on what you believe concerning replacing the original traditional wording of Matthew 28:19. Therefore if you feel mistreated in some of these posts i'm sorry you feel that way, but with the above posting I'm pretty convinced that you can suck up anything that may be sent your way. If you can dish it out then by all means you can take it. I hope.

I have asked you to please show us how we would deal with an untranslatable verse in Matthew. One which is virtually impossible to be translated into Hebrew/Aramaic. You either declined, or outright ignored it. Also I asked you what we should do with the problem of other verses or the entire New Testament credibility. This would be a problem, but you said you weren't concerned with "other" verses, but Matthew 28:19. You might not understand this, but you aren't winning your audience, but you just continue to alienate us with every post. We aren't enemies, we are brothers, so, therefore spoon feed as we question you to the big shotgun holes in this issue.

Your friend

Shu Iesu Kirisuto no na ni yotte

はい！

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If some friendly sources started giving you "evidence" that your wife was cheating on you, I'm sure you would go over EVERY JOT AND TITTLE with a fine toothed comb, like maybe haul out the electron microscopes, spend all your money on hiring private detectives to verify the truth. AND, not that these efforts would be spent trying to "catch" your wife, but rather they would be spent trying to vindicate her honour. Why? Because you would never doubt her one single bit unless and until OVERWHELMING AND UNDENIABLE evidence was presented, and EVEN THEN you'd do everything in your power to prove it wrong and vindicate the love of your life.

How much MORE diligent and scrupulous should we be when someone suggests to us to start DOUBTING THE VERY WORDS OF SCRIPTURE?

This is why most of us here aren't impressed with the quotes you are giving us. WHERE'S THE PROOF? We need something more than a bunch of infidels telling us our Bible is wrong. Where is the manuscript evidence?

All the manuscripts, all the ones GOD HAS PRESERVED FOR US TO GO BY, read a certain way, which is NOT the way you are telling us is the correct reading. Do you see the issue, then? The Bible is a translation of ancient manuscripts. If they all agree in a particular reading, THAT'S THE READING WE GO BY. In those places where manuscripts differ, we must be studious to determine which is the authentic, original reading. BUT EITHER WAY WE ARE WORKING WITH KNOWN EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS.

What you are doing is taking people's CLAIMS and SPECULATIONS and saying we need to CHANGE THE BIBLE to match them, when those same people can't even remotely agree on how it should read! And they have no TEXTS to support their claims. The logical, rational conclusion is the claims are UNFOUNDED.

This is a beautiful post!!!