Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

Okay, so when you get proven wrong, you just call it useless words, thanks. It appears the subject of why Eusebius quoted it the way he did is a bit of a sore spot for you. I'm assuming he maybe even read Origen's documents, which appear to have been edited.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Aha: So much for EVERY Manuscript.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]At least two texts have been found that make no mention of these things:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif]"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place."
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva, sans-serif](Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636) [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Don't you just love those Coptic texts? I do.

And there's also evidence that Origen got edited...

Yep. and this is why I say it begs the question. Far too often people rely solely on the text of the bible without any prior knowledge of the various manuscripts there were or even interpolations in their current bibles.

 

[Mark2020]

Can you both see this:

Both Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic have it.
(Matthew 28:19 [CopticB]) ⲙⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲁ`ⲥⲃⲱ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉⲛⲱⲙⲥ `ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ `ⲉ`ⲫⲣⲁⲛ `ⲙ`ⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ `ⲡϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ
(Matthew 28:19 [CopticS]) ΒШΚ ϬΕ ΝΤΕΤΝϮСΒШ ΝΝϨΕΘΝΟС ΤΗΡΟΥ. ΝΤΕΤΝΒΑΠΤΙΖΕ ΜΜΟΟΥ ΕΠΡΑΝ ΜΠΕΙШΤ ΜΝ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΜΝ ΠΕΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΕΤΟΥΑΑΒ.

Otherwise show the manuscript that you got.

 

[Mark2020]

Okay, so when you get proven wrong...

More funny words.
Don't get me started on your lies.

 

[Shermana]

Here is what I read a while back about the missing pages of Matthew, I mistakenly thought "Sinaiticus" from "Sinaitic". The oldest Latin manuscript is the one with the pages torn out.

Fredrick C. Conybeare notes that, “it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 275), and that “in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew”… “

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's still nothing.
Compared to hundreds of other manuscripts, translations and quotations, that's a joke.

It's not a joke and this research wasn't something I made up. This is in existence because it was done by scholars and theologians. Not scriptural novice such as you and I. What it shows is that there must have been another version of Matthew being quoted back then. It's more difficult to pin down because Christians and/or others destroyed a lot of information from around that time period.

 

[Mark2020]

Here is what I read a while back about the missing pages of Matthew, I mistakenly thought "Sinaiticus" from "Sinaitic"

"the pages are gone "
Useless against all I presented.

 

[Mark2020]

It's not a joke and this research wasn't something I made up...

I know you didn't make it up. I was referring to them.
Unless they show some solid proof, their words are useless.
We have too many pathetic and useless theories about both old and new testaments. But without giving some solid proof, they are useless.
We already have too many writings supporting this verse.

 

[Mark2020]

(Matthew 28:19 [NIV]) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(Matthew 28:19 [KJV]) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

(Matthew 28:19 [TR]) πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

(Matthew 28:19 [WHNU]) πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

(Matthew 28:19 [CopticB]) ⲙⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲁ`ⲥⲃⲱ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉⲛⲱⲙⲥ `ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ `ⲉ`ⲫⲣⲁⲛ `ⲙ`ⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ `ⲡϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ

(Matthew 28:19 [CopticS]) ΒШΚ ϬΕ ΝΤΕΤΝϮСΒШ ΝΝϨΕΘΝΟС ΤΗΡΟΥ. ΝΤΕΤΝΒΑΠΤΙΖΕ ΜΜΟΟΥ ΕΠΡΑΝ ΜΠΕΙШΤ ΜΝ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΜΝ ΠΕΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΕΤΟΥΑΑΒ.

(Matthew 28:19 [Pe****ta]) ܙܠܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܬܠܡܕܘ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡܡܐ ܘܐܥܡܕܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܀

(Matthew 28:19 [AraSVDV]) فَاذْهَبُوا وَتَلْمِذُوا جَمِيعَ الأُمَمِ وَعَمِّدُوهُمْ بِاسْمِ الآب وَالابْنِ وَالرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ.

It is in every translation.
It wasn't even doubted by Westcott and Hort.
It is not discussed in any apparatus.
There is no doubt about its authenticity.

 

[Shermana]

Since you still think there's NO doubt, let me repeat this for you:

The New American Bible, by Catholic Bible Publishers, states concerning Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make...some regard these words as an interpretation of [Yahshua’s] final instruction in the light of the church’s early change from a mission to the Jews to one in behalf of the Gentiles...The baptismal formula reflects the church’s gradual understanding of G-d as three Persons...”
The Hasting’s Encyclopedia of Religion (vol. 2, pp. 377-389) asserts about the change in formula: “The Christian baptism was administered using the Name of [Yahshua]. The trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the [Master Yahshua], until the time of Justin Martyr, when the Trinity formula was used.”
New Testament Theology by Donald Guthrie points out inconsistencies with Matthew 28:19: “The dispute over the authenticity of the triune formula revolves around the comparison with the simpler formula used in Acts (cf. 2:38 ; 8:16 ; 10:48 ; 19:5). The question arises whether the triune formula requires a late date.” A footnote states, “...and concludes against the words being the ipsissima verba [exact words] of [Yahshua], mainly on the grounds of historical probability,” p.719.
Another footnote explains that the Triune formula was used for the Gentiles, whereas in Acts those baptized were Jews or those fearing Yahweh. In other words, Jews were immersed into Yahshua’s Name, and Gentiles into the Trinitarian formula, as a trinity was familiar to pagans, p. 719.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary corroborates the practice: “The Jews baptized proselytes into the name of the Father, that is, into the profession g-d, whom they called by the name of Father. The apostles baptized the Jews into the name of [Yahshua] the Son, and the Gentiles into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” vol.3, p. 285.
Expositors’ Bible Commentary says only one formula was ever correctly used, a single-name prescription: “Many deny the authenticity of this Trinitarian formula, however, not on the basis of doubtful reconstructions of the development of doctrine, but on the basis of the fact that the only evidence we have of actual Christian baptism indicates a consistent monadic formula -- baptism in [Yahshua’s] name...” vol. 8, p. 598.
The Interpreter’s Bible agrees: “Probably this baptismal formula was simpler in the very first days of the church -- ‘in the name of the [Master Yahshua].’ The formula of verse 19 was probably a later development,” vol. 7, p. 624.
The Anchor Bible, a Catholic reference Bible, says on Matthew, “The neophyte baptized into the name of the Messiah thus not only pledges allegiance to [Yahshua] as the Messiah and Sovereign, but is also incorporated into fellowship with Him. Hence the expression used in this verse describes an entrance into fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit...It seems plain from the early material in Acts that baptism was performed “in the name of” and also “into the name of” [Yahshua] as Sovereign and Messiah. The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description what baptism accomplished,” pp. 107-108.
Parrinder’s World Religions raises the question of a later addition of the verse: “This verse may well be a later interpolation into the original gospel of Matthew, but it certainly reflects what the early Church did, in fact, does,” p. 425.
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says, “...Matthew 28:19 has also been disputed on textural grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether they may be regarded as ipsissima verba of [Yahshua]. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 ; 8:16 ; 19:5 supported by Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3 “suggests...Yahshua only, p. 351.
Word Pictures in New Testament by A. T. Robertson: “The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Trine immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority,” vol. 1, p.245.
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, sums up: “[Yahshua], however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows only baptism in the name of [Yahshua] (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of [Yahshua] to make such formulas...the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed...” (p.435).

 

[Mark2020]

Since you still think there's NO doubt, let me repeat this for you:

That's all you got:
"and concludes against"
"Probably this baptismal"

Useless.

To see how pathetic your position is, compare what you have to all this:

(Matthew 28:19 [NIV]) Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

(Matthew 28:19 [KJV]) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

(Matthew 28:19 [TR]) πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

(Matthew 28:19 [WHNU]) πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

(Matthew 28:19 [CopticB]) ⲙⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲁ`ⲥⲃⲱ `ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉⲛⲱⲙⲥ `ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ `ⲉ`ⲫⲣⲁⲛ `ⲙ`ⲫⲓⲱⲧ ⲛⲉⲙ `ⲡϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲡⲓⲡ̅ⲛ̅ⲁ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ

(Matthew 28:19 [CopticS]) ΒШΚ ϬΕ ΝΤΕΤΝϮСΒШ ΝΝϨΕΘΝΟС ΤΗΡΟΥ. ΝΤΕΤΝΒΑΠΤΙΖΕ ΜΜΟΟΥ ΕΠΡΑΝ ΜΠΕΙШΤ ΜΝ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΜΝ ΠΕΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΕΤΟΥΑΑΒ.

(Matthew 28:19 [Pe****ta]) ܙܠܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܬܠܡܕܘ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡܡܐ ܘܐܥܡܕܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܀

(Matthew 28:19 [AraSVDV]) فَاذْهَبُوا وَتَلْمِذُوا جَمِيعَ الأُمَمِ وَعَمِّدُوهُمْ بِاسْمِ الآب وَالابْنِ وَالرُّوحِ الْقُدُسِ.

It is in every translation.
It wasn't even doubted by Westcott and Hort.
It is not discussed in any apparatus.
There is no doubt about its authenticity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Unless they show some solid proof, their words are useless.

What "proof" would you have them show? These scholars are quoting from the writings of "historical" figures. Since that is the case then we can conclude by their sayings they had a different copy then what you're referring to.

To state your case a few pages ago you listed scholars such as Gills and a few others but as soon as we list scholars of equal rank you deem their study as "useless". Your standard of proof seems biased.

We already have too many writings supporting this verse.

But once again there is extra-biblical evidence to suggest that there were other copies contrary to what you have now presented by historical figures....some or most who were of the early church.

 

[Mark2020]

What "proof" would you have them show?

A manuscript to start with.

To state your case a few pages ago you listed scholars such as Gills

It was to show you that like you quoted Barnes to support your view, I could quote Gill to support mine.
It should be down to language. And I already told you that.

But once again there is extra-biblical evidence...

Too weak.
The fact that it's not even discussed in any apparatus simply kills your case.

 

[Mark2020]

Guess who should be most eager to remove it.
Right! But they couldn't:

(Matthew 28:19 [NWT]) Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A manuscript to start with.

That's just it and you don't seem to get it. These are "historical writings"....It would be the same as using Josephus to show that Yeshua had a brother named James...thus showing that extra-biblically Yeshua existed in writings outside the bible. The same goes for Origen and Eusebius. Reading their words lets us know there must have been scripture contrary to what you have.

It was to show you that like you quoted Barnes to support your view, I could quote Gill to support mine. It should be down to language. And I already told you that.

Then it should be fair game to list scholars, theologians, some even Catholic that show by the use of this historical information that Matthew 28:19 is spurious....

Too weak.
The fact that it's not even discussed in any apparatus simply kills your case.

What are you talking about? There were lists of scholars and theologians writing about this. This isn't new bible bashing flavor of the week. I've given a list of scholars writing about this as well as others here listing them.

 

[Mark2020]

That's just it ..

So you have no proof. Only useless words.

Then it should be fair game to list scholars,

Solid proofs are far superior to some people's useless words.

What are you talking about? ...

Your case is dead my friend.
Apparatuses killed your case and the NWT buried it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So you have no proof.

Neither do you my friend. There's a big difference between proof and evidence or did you not know this?

Only useless words.

Then why respond....?

Solid proofs are far superior to some people's useless words.

Scripture isn't "solid" proof. You're only as good as your oldest existing text. It makes no difference that subsequent copies backed up that which it was copied from. Let's face it, all we're debating here is mere copies of copies of copies....Everything else Christians burned. Origen and Eusebius state something differrently so your position must be that they lied...is this correct?

Your case is dead my friend.
Apparatuses killed your case and the NWT buried it.

You have me confused with someone else because I don't think Ive posted or backed translation done by NWT.

 

[Mark2020]

Neither do you my...

We are starting to go in circles here.

When I speak of solid proof, I mean the oldest manuscripts we have, all manuscripts actually, contain this verse. What I said about NWT is that they would be most eager to remove such a verse but they couldn't, they couldn't find any support for that.
Finding some people who quoted it in a way or another, even differently from each other as someone mentioned here, proves nothing. We have older literature supporting it.

Bottomline, if you or some scholars are going to dispute a verse that exists in hundreds or thousands of manuscripts [and not absent from a single one], translations, and quotations, and not disputed by a single apparatus, you/they should give more than that, or else that would be useless words, and, as you said, deserves no reply.

 

[Shermana]

But the fact that there was a big fire burning all the non-approved manuscripts they could find in the 300s doesn't play any role in that of course. Any "Church Father" document which says differently to what came after 300s must be thrown out apparently.

I asked if you were honorable enough to admit the possibility that Eusebius was using a different text, you even went so far as to cut that part out of my response.

 

[Mark2020]

But the fact that ...

"Honorable" is a cool word from someone whose best argument is to give "inaccurate" data.

It could be simply that he didn't quote the verse exactly which is not uncommon. Are you honorable enough to admit that?
Anyway the 2 translations of the diatessaron agree on that verse which makes your argument void.