The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I can only afford to give a few free bibles, they cost money.

But why California?

Why are they special?

What about us Southerners?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But why California?

Why are they special?

What about us Southerners?

Sorry.

[Esaias]

I notice the Kosher Matthew Mafia never seem to actually deal directly with the evidence brought forward that refutes their position.

I also notice they have no manuscript or text.

Which makes me notice they have no case.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

There is evidence that the writings of Justin Martyr were altered.

Justin Martyr First Apology, Early Christian Fathers (1953) translated by Dr. Cyril C Richardson.
Ch. 42, “our Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned; and by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him”
Ch. 61, “The illuminand is also washed [baptized] in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate”

Talking of things that were done in his name is New Testament 101.

Matthew 12:21
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

John 2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day,
many believed in his name,
when they saw the miracles which he did.

Acts 3:16
And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong,
whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Similarly in the name of Jesus Christ.
.
Ac 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:6
Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 16:18
And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

1Corinthians 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Ephesians 5:20
Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

2Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

================

You omitted the important verse from Justin Martyr that supports the traditional text of Matthew 28:19:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

The Sacred Writings of Justin Martyr
First Apology - Chapter 61
https://books.google.com/books?id=gRMsDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

A solid evidence, although Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus and many other writers way before Eusebius are more direct, and stronger references.

================

Now, let's discuss Origen's writing about the baptism in his Commentary on Romans, above. While this is one of about two dozen important references, it is helpful because it specifically shows the contrast of Matthew 28:19 with shorter forms .. in 200 AD, way before Euseubius (longer quote on p. 16.)

You may perhaps also be asking this: Since the Lord himself told the disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, why does the Apostle employ here the name of Christ alone in baptism?

Or Irenaeus, writing when you said there was no Greek Matthew.

“That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, ‘For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.’ And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” – Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book III, Chapter XVII

Incidentally, I will gladly acknowledge that the date of the Didache is uncertain and subject to sincere dispute, so it should not be considered as necessarily as early as Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian et al. I know your style of cherry-picking points of contention, and ignoring the fundamental and basic positions.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Second council of Constantinople, 553 AD issued an anathema against Origen for not believing in the Trinity.

So that would make his textual referencing evidence that much stronger.

Try to work logically. Thanks!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I notice the Kosher Matthew Mafia never seem to actually deal directly with the evidence brought forward that refutes their position. I also notice they have no manuscript or text. Which makes me notice they have no case.

Smoke and mirrors.

Discussing the Hebrew Matthew traditions and the error-ridden Shem Tob late medieval mss is a diversion. And there was apparently some Hebrew Matthew edition, but the edition seen by Jerome in Caesarea (as I remember) is quite different than canonical Matthew, and not extant.

You are right that the essentially unaminous textual evidences in all languages, thousands of mss, seals the issue.

My point though is to show how they are dishonest with the early church writer (ECW) evidences, which give extra-strong confirmation to the textual unanimity of our text. Dozens of references.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

Look, e.g. at the Origen quote, which not only affirms the Matthew 28:19 text, but does so in the midst of a comparative argument.

Sadly, the true ideologues here have too much emotionally invested in their error, too much pride is on the line (it is a giddy thing to think you are correcting God's word). It is likely that when they see Jesus they will have to account for why they were so intent on mangling his scriptures, the word of God.

So I do not write particularly for Flaming, who is buffeted by a spiritual principality, but for others here who might have gotten fogged up by the smoke and mirrors.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ⸀βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Updated books are fine. But the text of Mt. 28:19 remains the same. There are no Greek manuscripts of Mt. 28:19 that have a variant reading.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

that is irrelevant.

This shows an incredible ignorance.

One could claim that the 1000+ Greek manuscripts that all agree on the traditional ending are not absolute, decisive proof. (Fair enough.)

However, you have to be a textual village idiot to claim that the 1000+ Greek manuscripts agreeing is "irrelevant".

(Or the total of thousands of mss in Greek, Latin, Syriac and the versional languages.)

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I notice the Kosher Matthew Mafia never seem to actually deal directly with the evidence brought forward that refutes their position.

I also notice they have no manuscript or text.

Which makes me notice they have no case.

I'm still waiting for someone to find the Hebrew Book of Revelation

The main point of this issue is that people tend to believe in tradition more than facts. While they toss and turn over to wear a beard, or not wear a beard. They really drop the watermelon on some important issues. One is that Jesus was multilingual in a sociolinguistic world of the Roman empire. Yet, people are mistakenly led to believe that Jesus was praying to Yahweh, being called Yahshua. When it is incredibly possible that He was being addressed as Ιησούς by His mother Μαρία. Jesus is taken to Egypt, and the part of Egypt most likely for them to stay would of been Alexandria. Which was a Greek city. People tend to lean to a more modern Rabbinical Jewish Jesus, and call Him Yahshua. Instead of a historical Jesus, they end up with a Hollywood Jesus, who looks more like a Brooklyn Rebbe, then a First Century Judean living under hundreds of years of Gentile occupation.

400 years before Jesus' birth the LXX has the name which would appear in the New Testament. This name is Ιησούς. All the hub bub about no J, and that Ιησούς/Jesus is really Ζεύς are literally sorry arguments. Which have no basis in reality. Yet, in the United States people tend to gravitate to what ever tickles their ears, and could careless what the logical conclusion would be.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Sadly, the true ideologues here have too much emotionally invested in their error, too much pride is on the line (it is a giddy thing to think you are correcting God's word). It is likely that when they see Jesus they will have to account for why they were so intent on mangling his scriptures, the word of God.

Isn't that the truth.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

So that would make his textual referencing evidence that much stronger.

Try to work logically. Thanks!

Ha ha you are so silly.

In the commentary of Matthew by Origen, in chapter 28 where he should have commented on that passage, there is absolutely nothing, not one word about the trinity or the triune phrase.

Rufinus admitted to changing the writings of Origen to conform to the trinity view point.