Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Where are the Hebrew MS that the Greek was copied from?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We dont know that.

There are no Original hebrew MS of Matthew.

So far, we have no Hebrew MS of Matthew, but we have witnesses which declared that they existed early in the church history.

We might still find them, I really believe it will happen.

We must not forget that there was a widespread massive destruction of Hebrew Writings by the Catholic Church. History tells us that the priests had huge bonfires where they threw all Hebrew writings they could find.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

So far, we have no Hebrew MS of Matthew, but we have witnesses which declared that they existed early in the church history.

We might still find them, I really believe it will happen.

We must not forget that there was a widespread massive destruction of Hebrew Writings by the Catholic Church. History tells us that the priests had huge bonfires where they threw all Hebrew writings they could find.

They may have but that does not prove it was originally written in Hebrew

I would like the source for that Historical event

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Listen, you were simply wrong, and every manuscript is an evidence, and there are thousands of manuscripts.

Every single early manuscript with Matthew 28:19 has the full version. Every single one. Every early version translated in the 2nd through 4th century has the proper text.

And you try to cover your ignorance with insults. I remember when AFF had fairly high standards for posting.

Steven Avery

[Esaias]

Hebrew Matthew? That's been debunked so many times its no longer interesting.

[Scott Pitta]

I cannot prove or disprove what might have been. I can only translate manuscripts we currently possess.

I try to treat others with respect.

Each gospel writer covered the great commission differently. Actually, they all have unique material about the post resurrection activity of our Lord.

I do look forward to the time when new Greek manuscripts are discovered and published.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Ummm. I dont think that's the reason. Nor do I think there are any Biblical grounds for saying the oneness people are God's prized possession, apparently implying trinitarians are chopped liver.

Inherent to the culture---WE ARE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE---is the attitude. I grew up believing it. I preached it. God is no respecter of persons. I repented of my self righteousness and spiritual pride. It's modern-day Phariseeism.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Listen, you were simply wrong, and every manuscript is an evidence, and there are thousands of manuscripts.

Every single early manuscript with Matthew 28:19 has the full version. Every single one. Every early version translated in the 2nd through 4th century has the proper text.

And you try to cover your ignorance with insults. I remember when AFF had fairly high standards for posting.

Steven Avery

Listen, you were simply wrong, make that double wrong.

A thousand or even a million copies of a error does not make the error correct.

Every single early manuscript with Matthew 28:19 does not have the full version, there are plenty of manuscripts that do not have any ending at all.

There are only 3, read that 3 manuscripts from 325-350 AD that have that text, anyone saying anything else is simply lying.

And you try to cover your ignorance with false assertions.

[Scott Pitta]

Not all Greek manuscripts of Matthew are complete. This is something I assumed everyone knew. So...of the Greek Matthew manuscripts we have that have and ending to 18:19, all of them read the same.

Some church fathers and Eusebius claim that there was a variant reading for Mt. 28:19.

But, critical editions of the Greek NT are based on actual Greek manuscripts. Replacing a phrase without variation in the manuscripts with a reading based on non manuscript evidence is without merit.

Shall we replace all phrases in the NT with readings from the church fathers ? I think not.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Not all Greek manuscripts of Matthew are complete. This is something I assumed everyone knew. So...of the Greek Matthew manuscripts we have that have and ending to 18:19, all of them read the same.

Some church fathers and Eusebius claim that there was a variant reading for Mt. 28:19.

But, critical editions of the Greek NT are based on actual Greek manuscripts. Replacing a phrase without variation in the manuscripts with a reading based on non manuscript evidence is without merit.

Shall we replace all phrases in the NT with readings from the church fathers ? I think not.