Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

"In my name" is not a baptismal phrase used in any of the great commission accounts.

"In the name" is used by Matthew.

"In my name" they shall cast out demons. (Mark 16)

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke.

So when the quote "in my name" is mentioned, what passage is being referred to ??

Unless Matthew is mentioned by name, how do we know "in my name" is a specific quote from Matthew ???

actually in my name is in the great commission accounts.
That is how I got the revelation that Eusebius was correct.

Look at it
Mark 16: 16-17 He that believeth and is baptized...In my name
Luke 24:47 ERV: “You must start from Jerusalem and tell this message in my name to the people of all nations.”
John 20:31 (AB) But these things are also written that you may believe that Yeshua is The Messiah, the Son of God, and when you believe, you shall have eternal life in his name.

Mrk 16:17 (Great Commission)...my name
Lke 24:47 (Great Commission)…his name (my name)
Jhn 20:31 (Great Commission)…his name

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke?
of course he did, it was Luke who wrote the book of Acts. Acts is a continuation of the gospel of Luke.

[Scott Pitta]

Let me rephrase my idea.

How does one distinguish one great commission account from another ? Is the early church father quote refer to the great commission account given in Matthew, Mark or Luke ? How does one prove the quote is from Matthew and not from Mark ?? Did the early church fathers label the source of their quotes as being from Mark or Luke or Matthew ??

[Scott Pitta]

I am focusing on the wording of the great commission, not the totality of their literary works.

Luke does not specifically mention baptism in his great commission account in Luke or in Acts chapter one.

[Scott Pitta]

If the early church fathers are quoting Mark and we think they are quoting Matthew, the problem is not textual, but one of misinterpretation.

[1ofthechosen]

Of all the stuff that could be written about, do we really need to go to the Bible and change something that already is solidified by our position anyway?

It seems like a lot of wasted time is going Into this anyway when there is something productive that could be going on. I am a outsider looking in, but most of this is building a house on hearsay and conjecture. Eusebius didn't write anything in our Bible neither did any of these sources you have stated. Pursuing this is going to make your name.synonymous with heretics, and false prophet's. Not that I'm saying you are, but this work will be controversial at best. Maybe that's what your going for. But no one wants to be the Walter Martinz or Jimmy Swaggart of the Apostolic movement. And only a small amount of people are going to even pay attention to this stuff. And if they do they will proceed with caution. Most won't even take it seriously. So I want to ask for what? What will this even get accomplished even if everyone accepted it as truth? Nothing. Matthew 28:19 already supports what we believe because we know the singular Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus.

I would say this is all a bad move on your part. But hey its a free country and you have the right to do whatever you want. But you are going to be met with problems, and hit with labels that you won't be able to shake. That will ruin your name forever. And in the end it will be pointless, because Matthew 28:19 wasn't needed to establish our position. It already is firmly established without this.

If all this is to establish that Trinitarians even at their beginning are untruthful with their scholarship thats already established. We already know it. Trinitarians even can see it to some extent but deny the facts, because it faces them with a decision to leave their traditions behind. I don't see the purpose of any of this, the ends here just don't justify the means, but this is just my honest opinion. God Bless!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Eusebius citations

Partial.
You omitted his full citations.

You also omitted the many earlier church writers with the full phrase.

Why?
Simply because you are not doing scholarship.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

This answer of yours tells me that you have never actually read Eusebius. Anyone who has fully read all of his works will disagree with you.

You claimed 100+ allusions.
Simply a fabrication.

And I do not think you know what the word “allusion” means in textual referencing.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Let me rephrase my idea.

How does one distinguish one great commission account from another ? Is the early church father quote refer to the great commission account given in Matthew, Mark or Luke ? How does one prove the quote is from Matthew and not from Mark ?? Did the early church fathers label the source of their quotes as being from Mark or Luke or Matthew ??

Jesus only gave one great commission to his apostles, it is recorded differently in the gospels, but there was only one great commission. one must take the accounts as simply different ways of telling the same great commission.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You claimed 100+ allusions.
Simply a fabrication.

And I do not think you know what the word “allusion” means in textual referencing.

A fabrication?
There is actually a list of over 100 + allusions of Eusebius linking the great commission with the the name of Jesus, not with any trinity.

If you want to believe otherwise be my guest.

[Scott Pitta]

The writers of the NT provide different accounts of the great commission. Unless a church father identifies Matthew as the author of his quote, we do not know if they are quoting from Matthew, Mark or Luke.

If we are trying to determine the original wording of Mt. 28:19, references to Mark or Luke will not help. Only specific quotes to Matthew will.

Early church father references to the great commission that do not specifically label Matthew by name cannot be used to verify the wording of Mt. 28:19.

How many of the early church fathers refer specifically to Matthew ??