The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If you knew early church history you would know that there is no need whatsoever for Jerome to even mention Eusebius.

Wrong, again.

When Jerome describes the differences between a Hebrew Gospel that he had seen and the canonical Matthew, he does so in the context of his personal communication with brethren from Antioch, long after the passing of Eusebius.

In fact, that means that this collection of stories about Jesus was not even circulating in the Bethlehem-Jerusalem locale. We can also conclude that it was virtually unknown in Judea, Samaria and Galilee.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Wrong, again.

When Jerome describes the differences between a Hebrew Gospel that he had seen and the canonical Matthew, he does so in the context of his personal communication with brethren from Antioch, long after the passing of Eusebius.

In fact, that means that this collection of stories about Jesus was not even circulating in the Bethlehem-Jerusalem locale. We can also conclude that it was virtually unknown in Judea, Samaria and Galilee.

Steven

Sure, sure, sure keep on going on your merry way.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It means gospels of Matthew which do not have the trinitarian text at Mat 28:19.

We have also many ancient citations, of Matthew 28:19 without the trinitarian text.

Eusebius had a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and he cited 18 times the text using the phrase "In my name"
Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel) Book 3
1. 3:6 With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And He joined the effect to His Word;

and Eusebius also made over 100 allusions linking the name of Jesus to the great commission in his writings.

The following ancient citations back up this text.
Annarikhus: “Go ye forth into all the world, and teach ye all the nations in My Name in every place.”
Aphraates: “Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me”
Ephrem: “Go out into the whole world and proclaim my gospel to the whole of creation and baptize all the Gentiles.”
Thaddaeus: “And He sent us in His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the nations.”

All these citations go back many hundredths of years.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Please give the precise citation that Eusebius had a Hebrew of our canonical Matthew.

Thanks!

Steven

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Here it is

“Matthew…composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”
Jerome

Now will you convert and accept the truth or will continue in disbelief.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Jerome is not Eusebius. Stop being deceitful.

Read the whole section, what Jerome says about that work, and you learn that it is not canonical Matthew. Again, stop being deceitful.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I never said that Jerome was Eusebius, show me anywhere where I said that.

Your ignorance of ancient church history is astounding.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I have never once claimed that Jerome is Eusebius, I have no idea where in your imagination do you ever think that I claimed that.

Correction you made the error, this is an exact copy of what you wrote.

"Please give the precise citation that Eusebius had a Hebrew of our canonical Matthew."

You made no mention whatsoever that the citation had to be from Eusebius himself.

I do not know the basics? Well I guess I wasted my time studying for years the history of the early church.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

If you knew early church history you would know that there is no need whatsoever for Jerome to even mention Eusebius, but I guess it is pointless to discuss some things with some people.

It's pretty obvious you made an error, FZ. You said Eusebius had a Hebrew Matthew, you were asked for the evidence of that, and you said "Here it is" and then quoted Jerome.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It's pretty obvious you made an error, FZ. You said Eusebius had a Hebrew Matthew, you were asked for the evidence of that, and you said "Here it is" and then quoted Jerome.

Dear Esaias since you are a more reasonable person than that other guy, I figure that I shall answer you.

I did not make any error at all.

A simple knowledge and understanding of ancient history clears up the whole story.

look at my answer clearly
“Matthew…composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”
Jerome

Now who was the disciple of Pamphilus?
Who was called the son of Pamphilus?
Who inherited the Library at Ceasarea?
Who was the caretaker for the Library at Ceasarea for all his life?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Dear Esaias since you are a more reasonable person than that other guy, I figure that I shall answer you.

I did not make any error at all.

A simple knowledge and understanding of ancient history clears up the whole story.

look at my answer clearly
“Matthew…composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”
Jerome

Now who was the disciple of Pamphilus?
Who was called the son of Pamphilus?
Who inherited the Library at Ceasarea?
Who was the caretaker for the Library at Ceasarea for all his life?

Why didn't you just explain that in the beginning? lol

Now, can you demonstrate that the Hebrew mentioned by Jerome was in fact the original "Gospel According to Matthew" which ought to replace the Greek Matthew we currently have?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why didn't you just explain that in the beginning? lol

Now, can you demonstrate that the Hebrew mentioned by Jerome was in fact the original "Gospel According to Matthew" which ought to replace the Greek Matthew we currently have?

FZ that is what you need to prove. With strong clear evidence.

[Scott Pitta]

Replacing sentences with a reading from other manuscripts of the same book is fine. Even comparing how a book was translated into other languages has profound value.

Replacing a reading with an allusion is a horse of a different color.

Someone needs to find the Hebrew manuscript of Matthew that Eusebius mentioned before changes can be made to the Greek text of Matthew.

How many changes to the text would there be if the entire chapter of Matthew 28 if the Greek is replaced with quotes from the early church fathers ?

Why only one verse ? Do the entire chapter and let's see the end result.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why didn't you just explain that in the beginning? lol

Now, can you demonstrate that the Hebrew mentioned by Jerome was in fact the original "Gospel According to Matthew" which ought to replace the Greek Matthew we currently have?

OK I will give you another piece of the puzzle.

Let's hope you are able to connect some of the dots.

According to accounts Christianity begun around 33 AD in Jerusalem and extended far and wide, it reached India by 52 AD.

The apostles who are credited with bringing Christianity to India are Thomas and Bartholomew.

According to legend Bartholomew took the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew when he went to India, where he left it in their charge before he continued in his travels to China where it is said that he introduced Christianity.

It is well known that early Christians in India baptized in the name of Jesus, that is according to the book India and its millions (1884) by the Reverend Dennis Osborne.

Many years later Pantænus went to India in a missionary trip and returned in 192 AD, with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

The Alexandrian school was run by Pantænus from 180 AD till 190 before his trip to India, and he died sometime soon after that trip around 193 AD. While Pantænus was in India, Clement took over the leadership of the Alexandrian school.

After the death of Clement, Origen took over the leadership of the Alexandrian school, and after a while in 203 AD Origen left permanently and went to (where do you guess) and he begun a certain library (guess which library)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK I will give you another piece of the puzzle.

Let's hope you are able to connect some of the dots.

According to accounts Christianity begun around 33 AD in Jerusalem and extended far and wide, it reached India by 52 AD.

The apostles who are credited with bringing Christianity to India are Thomas and Bartholomew.

According to legend Bartholomew took the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew when he went to India, where he left it in their charge before he continued in his travels to China where it is said that he introduced Christianity.

It is well known that early Christians in India baptized in the name of Jesus, that is according to the book India and its millions (1884) by the Reverend Dennis Osborne.

Many years later Pantænus went to India in a missionary trip and returned in 192 AD, with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

The Alexandrian school was run by Pantænus from 180 AD till 190 before his trip to India, and he died sometime soon after that trip around 193 AD. While Pantænus was in India, Clement took over the leadership of the Alexandrian school.

After the death of Clement, Origen took over the leadership of the Alexandrian school, and after a while in 203 AD Origen left permanently and went to (where do you guess) and he begun a certain library (guess which library)

So you have a copy of this original Hebrew Matthew?

[Scott Pitta]

Time for a new question. Is a Hebrew Matthew "better" than a Greek Matthew ? Or is it "better" because it is earlier ??

If earlier manuscripts are to be preferred over later manuscripts, then shall we give preference to earlier Greek manuscripts over those made hundreds of years later ?