Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent. - Page 4

Evang.Benincasa · #31 05-01-2016, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I am guessing "the Apostolic Bible"!

You know I tend to agree with what you posted on how there is great danger in asserting that certain scriptures in the bible are false. That it can open up a Can O Worms where every Internet scholar can find theologians who support their view that a section of verse doesn't belong in the text. I'm just asking my friend if you has clear evidence on Matthew 28:19 as being spurious. I have a book around my library which was written to show how Matthew 28:19 was added. It makes an argument by quoting ancient church fathers, but I was just wondering if my friend has some evidence which would prove beyond the shadow of doubt the claim against Matthew 28:19.

FlamingZword · #32 05-01-2016, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You know I tend to agree with what you posted on how there is great danger in asserting that certain scriptures in the bible are false. That it can open up a Can O Worms where every Internet scholar can find theologians who support their view that a section of verse doesn't belong in the text. I'm just asking my friend if you has clear evidence on Matthew 28:19 as being spurious. I have a book around my library which was written to show how Matthew 28:19 was added. It makes an argument by quoting ancient church fathers, but I was just wondering if my friend has some evidence which would prove beyond the shadow of doubt the claim against Matthew 28:19.

In a court of law if the body is missing because the criminal managed to hide it or destroy it, then you go by the evidence, and there is a mountain of evidence that shows the original text did not include the phrase "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

The verse is nowhere in any other text in the whole Bible, the same commission was given in Mark, where it says "in My name", also in Luke "in my name" (CIV).

There is mountain of evidence and it is written in the Book titled "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored". available in Amazon.

Steven Avery · #33 05-01-2016, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

there is a mountain of evidence that shows the original text did not include the phrase "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"..

This is totally false. Many thousands of manuscripts, every Biblical language included, have the verse intact. Afaik, only one late ms. from the middle ages, related to Jewish anti-missionaries and full of corruption, has an abbreviated version. If this verse is not preserved scripture, there is not one verse in the Bible you can receive as scripture against some speculation coming down the pike.

Similarly the ECW evidence is massive. Lots of evidence from BEFORE Eusebius. Many dozens of references overall. Eusebius had a mixed usage. And that mixed usage matches that of Pentecostals today who often talk of baptizing in his name. Overall, it is one of the very best attested verses in the Bible (that nod may go to John 10:30).

The fact that a couple of of oneness writers are extremely weak on the textual and ECW evidences on this issue is to their own shame. (Also it helps if you understand the harmony of Matthew and Acts.) This fascination with a piddle corruption puts the oneness writers into disrepute, since they obviously cannot discuss the actual evidences properly. They will be seen as willful corrupters of scripture, attempting to remake the Bible to fit their own perceptions. This is a common endeavor of Bible text charlatanism.

Steven Avery

FlamingZword · #34 05-02-2016, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is totally false. Many thousands of manuscripts, every Biblical language included, have the verse intact. Afaik, only one late ms. from the middle ages, related to Jewish anti-missionaries and full of corruption, has an abbreviated version. If this verse is not preserved scripture, there is not one verse in the Bible you can receive as scripture against some speculation coming down the pike.

Similarly the ECW evidence is massive. Lots of evidence from BEFORE Eusebius. Many dozens of references overall. Eusebius had a mixed usage. And that mixed usage matches that of Pentecostals today who often talk of baptizing in his name. Overall, it is one of the very best attested verses in the Bible (that nod may go to John 10:30).

The fact that a couple of of oneness writers are extremely weak on the textual and ECW evidences on this issue is to their own shame. (Also it helps if you understand the harmony of Matthew and Acts.) This fascination with a piddle corruption puts the oneness writers into disrepute, since they obviously cannot discuss the actual evidences properly. They will be seen as willful corrupters of scripture, attempting to remake the Bible to fit their own perceptions. This is a common endeavor of Bible text charlatanism.

Steven Avery

This is totally false.

Where do you get thousands. Ha Ha Ha, you are delusional
There is only three late manuscripts that have text, there are no early texts of that phrase.

1. Codex Vaticanus (325–350 CE) (the oldest witness of text),
2. Codex Sinaiticus (330–360 CE),
3. Codex Vercellensis (a 3) (370 CE) (the Old Latin)

There is no massive evidence, no lots of evidence before Eusebius, you are simply parroting some line.

If some is a charlatan here it is you.

Steven Avery · #35 05-02-2016, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

This is totally false. Where do you get thousands. Ha Ha Ha, you are delusional.

About 1500+ Greek, a larger number of Latin, 500+ Syriac, and then Armenian, Ethiopic, Sahadic etc.

The language lines were generally translated from the 100s to 400s.

So you are ignorant of evidences, as I pointed out about the oneness "scholars" who embarrass themselves on this issue.

Steven Avery

Scott Pitta · #36 05-02-2016, 02:25 AM

We have been down this road before.

No Greek manuscript of Matthew has a ending different from Mt. 28:19. Not one.

The Greek manuscripts Eusebius referred to no longer exist,so we cannot examine them.

We can only translate manuscripts we have in our hands.

Should we base a text on the quotes and allusions of the early church fathers ? Should we base a Greek text on variant readings from other languages ?

FlamingZword · #37 05-02-2016, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

About 1500+ Greek, a larger number of Latin, 500+ Syriac, and then Armenian, Ethiopic, Sahadic etc.

The language lines were generally translated from the 100s to 400s.

So you are ignorant of evidences, as I pointed out about the oneness "scholars" who embarrass themselves on this issue.

Steven Avery

If someone here is ignorant it is you.

Most of those texts you mention are not original but are simply translations of the Greek and none of the have the Trinitarian phrase before 325 AD.

go back to school, start at kindergarten.

stop embarrassing yourself with your childish ignorance.

FlamingZword · #38 05-02-2016, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

We have been down this road before.

No Greek manuscript of Matthew has a ending different from Mt. 28:19. Not one.

The Greek manuscripts Eusebius referred to no longer exist,so we cannot examine them.

We can only translate manuscripts we have in our hands.

Should we base a text on the quotes and allusions of the early church fathers ? Should we base a Greek text on variant readings from other languages ?

and I will repeat to you a million times that the original text of Matthew was in Hebrew not Greek, go and join your pal Steven Avery in the playground at the preschool of your choice.

Praxeas · #39 05-02-2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Because the Original Matthew was in Hebrew not in Greek, the corruption probably begun in the Greek translation.

We dont know that.

There are no Original hebrew MS of Matthew.

Praxeas · #40 05-02-2016, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

In a court of law if the body is missing because the criminal managed to hide it or destroy it, then you go by the evidence, and there is a mountain of evidence that shows the original text did not include the phrase "the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

The verse is nowhere in any other text in the whole Bible, the same commission was given in Mark, where it says "in My name", also in Luke "in my name" (CIV).

There is mountain of evidence and it is written in the Book titled "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored". available in Amazon.

Mark's ending is unique too, as is Luke's