Re: What Bible?

The claim makes no sense to me. I don't have the latest Nestle-Aland text
(mine is Nestle's 16th ed, 1936), but there seems to be no MSS containing
Matthew 28 that dates before the fourth century. The sole possible
exception is the third century Chester Beatty papyrus in London which has
fragments from the gospels and Acts. The only variant noted in the triune
name in the baptismal formula is from Eusebius, ca. 340, who has "in my
name." The absence of earlier attestation is not evidence for
nonexistence--except for revisionists.

I John 5:7f is different, for it occurs only in some later Minuscules (in
the margin of one) and the Latin.
Dave

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:25:43 -0800 (PST) Pim van Meurs
<pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> writes:
I fail to see how this shows that the concept of the trinity was present.
A few random references but none that develop this concept. In fact the
NT, where the concept was truely first developed seems to have added the
trinity as a later addition
(http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm)

I had no idea...

<quote>There is a verse in Matthew that very seldom is mentioned in spite
of evidence that has been brought against it. There is a wealth of
support in the manuscripts for it. The only problem is there are no
manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is
absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the
Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak
in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time
when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the
evidence against t his passage because of the weight it carries in Church
tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity
baptism formula!</quote>
Received on Sun Mar 12 23:47:49 2006