Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

All these arguments you have presented have already been rebutted in the book "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored". Nothing new here in your citations. Every single one of these allegations is taken apart and destroyed in the pages of this book.

*Including the email by Dr. Wallace? You now have access to my emails ? Do you know who Dr. Wallace is? He travels the planet digitizing & researching the ancient papyri. Can you even translate without the aid of tools?

*I've read your stuff on here before & if the book is any indication (& I have no doubt it is) - it is virtually worthless. I usually don't even respond to stuff so far out.

*I've quoted the men who actually handle the papyri (would you like their email?), early Greek texts, ECF, & shown the Shem Tov to be the fraud that it is.

*Your paradigm reminds me of the supposed "Yeshua" movement - all mixed up & thoroughly set no matter how much evidence is staring them in the face. Silly.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Internal evidence ? That is interesting, at least to me. My focus is on Greek manuscripts.

But I do not see how a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew has anything to do with the textual history of Mt. 28:19.

I will look up the Shem Tov. OK, is it really from the 14th century ? Should we take all the variant readings from Shem Tov and incorporate them into the Greek text ? What is the textual history of the Shem Tov ? How has it changed via transmission from the time Matthew penned it until the 14th century copy we have today ?

I am not the sharpest mind in our group, but I may see a logical weakness formulating. Irenaeus says there was a Hebrew Matthew. 1200 years later, a Hebrew Matthew shows up. How do we know this is the same document that Irenaeus was referring to ? Is any Hebrew Matthew so much better than a Greek Matthew that all variant readings are to be incorporated into the Greek text ?

If the English translations are correct, the Peshitta has it

[Godsdrummer]

What does it matter, does one think that one manuscript is going to change peoples minds in the face of the way they see a passage.

To say Matt 28:19 is a Trinitarian scripture, IMO is bogus. Matt 28:19 is no more Trinitarian than Genesis 1:26. As with any other passage, it is in the mind of the reader and how they are taught.

But I guess we have to have something to debate so carry on don't mind me.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by rdp

*Including the email by Dr. Wallace? You now have access to my emails ? Do you know who Dr. Wallace is? He travels the planet digitizing & researching the ancient papyri. Can you even translate without the aid of tools?

*I've read your stuff on here before & if the book is any indication (& I have no doubt it is) - it is virtually worthless. I usually don't even respond to stuff so far out.

*I've quoted the men who actually handle the papyri (would you like their email?), early Greek texts, ECF, & shown the Shem Tov to be the fraud that it is.

*Your paradigm reminds me of the supposed "Yeshua" movement - all mixed up & thoroughly set no matter how much evidence is staring them in the face. Silly.

I know perfectly well who Dr. Wallace is, he is quoted in this book.

How nice to judge a book as worthless without even reading it.

I can also provide you with the emails of scholars who disagree with you.

You paradigm reminds me of the trinitarians who refuse to baptize in the name of Jesus, all mixed up & thoroughly set no matter how much evidence is staring them in the face. Silly.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I know perfectly well who Dr. Wallace is, he is quoted in this book.

How nice to judge a book as worthless without even reading it.

I can also provide you with the emails of scholars who disagree with you.

You paradigm reminds me of the trinitarians who refuse to baptize in the name of Jesus, all mixed up & thoroughly set no matter how much evidence is staring them in the face. Silly.

*The difference is that you don't have any MS "evidence," only some early quotes (wonder if you'll accept *EVERYTHING* those same writers say? I hardly doubt it).

*This is exactly why I rarely interact on here. If ignorance is bliss some folks are in a perpetual utopia. Wallace actually handles & researches the actual papyri & is unparalleled in text-criticism.

*Oh, & yes - I would *LOVE* to talk to these "scholars" you're referring to regarding the fictitious "Hebrew Matthew" (can you point us to even a fragment of such?) & the supposed "interpolation" of 28.19.

*You've unwittingly seized onto some shoddy "scholarship" & will *NOT* let it go - despite the fact that ca. 5,800 Greek MSS all have this reading (which is why it's not listed as a textual variant in Munster (the text-critic HQ), NA28, UBS-5, Metzger, or any other serious text-critics (again, these are the one's who actually research the ancient-physical papyri).

*I doubt you even read and write Greek. This is about like a shade-tree mechanic telling a NASA engineer how to "accurately" build their space shuttles . But, keep living in your own esoteric world (I fully predict you will ) - I'll stick w. the actual MSS themselves .

[Steven Avery]

And I think I will point out that Apostolic circles, that historically were Authorised Version users in the south, and split in other areas between the AV and modern versions, have something of a plague in their midst of Bible correction.

When I looked into Matthew 28:19 some years ago, which is about the dumbest Bible correction attempt going, I noticed Marvin Arnold, Clinton T. Willis, Cohen Reckhart, Marion Fretwell, Mark Kennicott, and Randall Duane Hughes among those with some sort of apostolic perspective that were taking this absurd position against the purity of the Bible. They were all trying to run with the Conybeare stuff and had close to zero ability to actually look at the evidences forthrightly.

Fortunately, this forum has a number of posters with clarity of mind and a solid Bible text background and the nonsense gets answered with some pizazz.

My point is simple. You can not get around the centrality of the Bible being the pure and perfect word of God. Changing the Bible to (supposedly, not really) match your doctrinal preferences is a total and unmitigated disaster. The pure Bible should inform your doctrines, and if you don't like the way a verse and your doctrines clash, either look for a deeper understanding or change your doctrines. Don't try to change the word of God!

We have to first seek to know God's pure word. When the Bible can be changed to match your preferences you have nothing but 1,000 personal versions, and mindless chatter.

And I personally believe that this extends also to 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh.." and Acts 8:37 with the baptism testimony of faith and the heavenly witnesses and John 1:18 the only begotten Son and "Father, forgive them" and the Pericope Auldterae and the Mark ending and other salient verses. Although I understand that on a forum like this you will have "modern version" users working with the variant omissions and corruptions. At least there we can have a bit of vibrant study and teaching and sharing, iron sharpeneth.

As for the black hole of the movement that is contra the Matthew 28:19 traditional text, I say the proponents are enemies of the purity of the Bible and should be marked and noted accordingly. In some cases, they are innocent dupes, in others .. not so innocent. There are spiritual principalities at work. Sometimes we have to personally take a stand and set up a line of demarcation.

Steven Avery

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I think I will point out that Apostolic circles, that historically were Authorised Version users in the south, and split in other areas between the AV and modern versions, have something of a plague in their midst of Bible correction.

When I looked into Matthew 28:19 some years ago, which is about the dumbest Bible correction attempt going, I noticed Marvin Arnold, Clinton T. Willis, Cohen Reckhart, Marion Fretwell, Mark Kennicott, and Randall Duane Hughes among those with some sort of apostolic perspective that were taking this absurd position against the purity of the Bible. They were all trying to run with the Conybeare stuff and had close to zero ability to actually look at the evidences forthrightly.

Fortunately, this forum has a number of posters with clarity of mind and a solid Bible text background and the nonsense gets answered with some pizazz.

My point is simple. You can not get around the centrality of the Bible being the pure and perfect word of God. Changing the Bible to (supposedly, not really) match your doctrinal preferences is a total and unmitigated disaster. The pure Bible should inform your doctrines, and if you don't like the way a verse and your doctrines clash, either look for a deeper understanding or change your doctrines. Don't try to change the word of God!

We have to first seek to know God's pure word. When the Bible can be changed to match your preferences you have nothing but 1,000 personal versions, and mindless chatter.

And I personally believe that this extends also to 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifest in the flesh.." and Acts 8:37 with the baptism testimony of faith and the heavenly witnesses and John 1:18 the only begotten Son and "Father, forgive them" and the Pericope Auldterae and the Mark ending and other salient verses. Although I understand that on a forum like this you will have "modern version" users working with the variant omissions and corruptions. At least there we can have a bit of vibrant study and teaching and sharing, iron sharpeneth.

As for the black hole of the movement that is contra the Matthew 28:19 traditional text, I say the proponents are enemies of the purity of the Bible and should be marked and noted accordingly. In some cases, they are innocent dupes, in others .. not so innocent. There are spiritual principalities at work. Sometimes we have to personally take a stand and set up a line of demarcation.

Steven Avery

Yeah we have a line of demarcation, the one created by Peter, Phillip and Paul and that line is baptism in the name of Jesus.

You obviously are a dumb and deaf trinitarian who worships three gods.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yeah we have a line of demarcation, the one created by Peter, Phillip and Paul and that line is baptism in the name of Jesus.
You obviously are a dumb and deaf trinitarian who worships three gods.

This post was reported.

Thank you for supply an example of how Bible correctors, who change the Bible to match their own lack of understanding, quickly morph into railing accusers.

Steven Avery

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This post was reported.

Thank you for supply an example of how Bible correctors, who change the Bible to match their own lack of understanding, quickly morph into railing accusers.

Steven Avery

by the way you are also blind, you read the scriptures and you do not see the truth.
go hurry up and and report this too.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Easy, easy, cool down.

You would think you were both discussing eschatology.