The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I am of the opinion that there are no Greek variant readings, precisely because the original was in Hebrew and it was in the translation into Greek that the change was made. So it would be obvious that there would not be any Greek variants.
What the real question should be is, were there any Hebrew manuscripts that had a variant text? and the answer to that is probably yes, we have plenty of evidence that the phrase "in my name " was in the Hebrew original of Matthew 28:19.

Why do you always avoid the hard questions?

Again, if God lost His Hebrew Matthew, what else has been corrupted, changed, altered, added, removed, lost?

You don't know it yet, but your grandkids have no Bible at all.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

I am of the opinion that there are no Greek variant readings, precisely because the original was in Hebrew and it was in the translation into Greek that the change was made. So it would be obvious that there would not be any Greek variants.
What the real question should be is, were there any Hebrew manuscripts that had a variant text? and the answer to that is probably yes, we have plenty of evidence that the phrase "in my name " was in the Hebrew original of Matthew 28:19.

For Matthew to be originally written in Hebrew you have a bigger problem than one verse. Matthew translates Aramaic words used by Jesus Matthew 27:46 is a quote from the Psalm. Yet, Matthew translates the Aramaic into Greek for his readers. Why, would a the author who originally penned the book in Aramaic explain an Aramaic word to his readers? Again, this is clearly not about one scripture interpolation, but it brings into question the entire book. All to support some Hebrew Onlyist Yeshua agenda by Hebrew Roots and Jehovah Witnesses. FZ, not saying that is what you are trying to do. Just bringing up the two groups who push the Hebrew origin of the Gospel writings.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why do you always avoid the hard questions?

Again, if God lost His Hebrew Matthew, what else has been corrupted, changed, altered, added, removed, lost?

You don't know it yet, but your grandkids have no Bible at all.

Exactly, with the whole Yeshua, Hebrew Onlyist assumptions we end up shooting ourselves in the foot. Logically it begs the questions, what else is messed up? Not, what else is missing, but what else was added? Sadly, Bart Ehrman would be proud.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

For Matthew to be originally written in Hebrew you have a bigger problem than one verse. Matthew translates Aramaic words used by Jesus.

Yes, the internal translations are in all the Gospels and Acts and some other books.

They prove that the original language was neither Hebrew or Aramaic, and they are consistent with the books being written in Gteek or Latin.

[FlamingZword]

Great news

Found the 60th Gospel without the Trinitarian ending at Mat 28:19
it says
Duceţi-vă* şi faceţi ucenici** din toate popoarele și botezul lor să fie în Numele Meu.
"Go and make disciples of all peoples and baptise them to be in My Name."

We begun with one single gospel (The Shem Tov Matthew) but through years of research we have finally reached the Milestone of finding 60 Non-trinitarian Gospels of Matthew.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Great news

Found the 60th Gospel without the Trinitarian ending at Mat 28:19
it says
Duceţi-vă* şi faceţi ucenici** din toate popoarele și botezul lor să fie în Numele Meu.
"Go and make disciples of all peoples and baptise them to be in My Name."

We begun with one single gospel (The Shem Tov Matthew) but through years of research we have finally reached the Milestone of finding 60 Non-trinitarian Gospels of Matthew.

Documented evidence would be nice.

Sadly, you supplied us with ....none?

[Scott Pitta]

But none of them are Greek manuscripts of Matthew.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Documented evidence would be nice.

Sadly, you supplied us with ....none?

You can find many of those Non-trintarian Matthew gospels in Amazon, please do not be lazy. I spent my hard earned money to buy many of them.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

But none of them are Greek manuscripts of Matthew.

The Greek Manuscripts are irrelevant to these gospels for the Original Matthew was in Hebrew. The Trinitarian change happened in the translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. There are plenty of witness who testify to the existence of an original Hebrew Matthew.

[Scott Pitta]

Our NT's are translated from Greek manuscripts.

We cannot translate from manuscripts we do not possess.

If the only inspired copy of Matthew is in Hebrew, then we should remove Matthew from the canon.