The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You are still claiming that Jerome is Eusebius?

You write with zero integrity.
Remember, I asked for the Eusebius reference, you could at least say "my error."

From memory:
Jerome lived in Bethlehem, used the library in Caesarea, and met the brethren from Antioch (now Alitalia, Turkey). Jerome saw the Hebrew Matthew and gave us some description. This edition had stories in it that are not in canonical Matthew (whether it was written by Matthew or not.)

You obviously do not know the basics.

Steven

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.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

"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.

Your quote from Jerome did not even mention Eusebius. And it was not about canonical Matthew.

Why not simply admit you erred?

Why do you prolong nonsense?
And you wonder why nobody here cares about your book?

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I took me over ten years of research into this subject.

I hope you used those years productively in some other areas of your life.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

bye, have a happy trinitarian baptism.

Why do you fabricate silly stuff, rather than have a real discussion?

Do you have a response to my post that shows that Jerome made it perfectly clear that the Hebrew Matthew was not canonical Matthew?

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm no scholar. But these questions come to mind as I read this thread:

What if the scribal commentary isn't a reference to an older text? What if it only demonstrates that even they could see that Matthew 28:19 is actually a reference to the name of Jesus?

What if they also had super powers?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if the scribal commentary isn't a reference to an older text? What if it only demonstrates that even they could see that Matthew 28:19 is actually a reference to the name of Jesus?

Considering the Treatise on Rebaptism, I think this is a fairly likely possibility for many references to baptism in the name (of Jesus) in some early church writers.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Your quote from Jerome did not even mention Eusebius. And it was not about canonical Matthew.

Why not simply admit you erred?

Why do you prolong nonsense?
And you wonder why nobody here cares about your book?

I hope you used those years productively in some other areas of your life.

Why do you fabricate silly stuff, rather than have a real discussion?

Do you have a response to my post that shows that Jerome made it perfectly clear that the Hebrew Matthew was not canonical Matthew?

Steven

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.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Considering the Treatise on Rebaptism, I think this is a fairly likely possibility for many references to baptism in the name (of Jesus) in some early church writers.

Steven

Amen.

I believe the Matthian text as we have it today is based on the original. I believe that all the references wherein the text appears to have been reworded to point to Jesus name baptism is only evidence that they understood what the Matthian text was actually saying.

So, there is no need to restore it. We just have to continue believing what it actually teaches, which these historians and scribes appear to have known.

[Scott Pitta]

Aquila is right.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The whole case for an abbreviated Matthew 28:19 is totally based on conjecture. Nothing more.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The whole case for an abbreviated Matthew 28:19 is totally based on conjecture. Nothing more.

Plus a whole bunch of external sources and internal biblical evidence.

[Scott Pitta]

There is no internal evidence to supports an alternative ending to the book of Matthew. Internal, meaning Matthew. What evidence from the gospel of Matthew indicates Mt. 28:19 is wrong or uncharacteristic of Matthews writing style ?