In The name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost
- Thread starter Pilgrimshope
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
There are no New Testament documents found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You might be thinking about how the language found in Dead Sea Scrolls was helpful in attempting to translate a Greek manuscript into the language of the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls and what that would look like. A hypothetical experiment.
You might be thinking about how the language found in Dead Sea Scrolls was helpful in attempting to translate a Greek manuscript into the language of the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls and what that would look like. A hypothetical experiment.
The original preserved Book of Matthew in Israel is called "Kingdom of Yisrael"
And it's been translated by the Biblical Scholar George Howard and the Hebrew Translation itself has been confirmed accurate.
And it's been translated by the Biblical Scholar George Howard and the Hebrew Translation itself has been confirmed accurate.
S
The only fragments that have a few identifiable words that some have speculated might be from Mark 16 are in Greek. The few words can also be found in the OT so it is not enough. There are no theories about any fragments possibly belonging to Matthew.
The more we talk the less you seem to have researched your topic about the Hebrew origins of Matthew or the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am not wanting to argue either but it is not wise to fall for misinformation when it comes to properly interpreting scripture meaning, authorial intent or what the Spirit of God would have you apply to your life.
What exactly is the point. Is there an aversion to saying Father, Son and Holy Ghost when baptising people? I wish people would educate themselves as to what "The Name of" meant at the time this was written. It means the same as it does today. Like "open up in the name of the Law" It means in the authority of, not a magic spell of words of incantation and whether you say in the name of Jesus or the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost simply means that you are saying God has given you authority to baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ. He is the Son so either way you are saying the same thing.
The argument is like so many others, based on lack of understanding of word usage and not comprehending the Spirit of the words.
The more we talk the less you seem to have researched your topic about the Hebrew origins of Matthew or the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am not wanting to argue either but it is not wise to fall for misinformation when it comes to properly interpreting scripture meaning, authorial intent or what the Spirit of God would have you apply to your life.
What exactly is the point. Is there an aversion to saying Father, Son and Holy Ghost when baptising people? I wish people would educate themselves as to what "The Name of" meant at the time this was written. It means the same as it does today. Like "open up in the name of the Law" It means in the authority of, not a magic spell of words of incantation and whether you say in the name of Jesus or the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost simply means that you are saying God has given you authority to baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ. He is the Son so either way you are saying the same thing.
The argument is like so many others, based on lack of understanding of word usage and not comprehending the Spirit of the words.
-
1
- Show all
S
Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut was the author of an anti-Christian religious treatise, The Touchstone, completed in 1380 and revised in 1385 and 1400. Often referred to as "The Logic of Shem Tob", it argues against the belief that Jesus is God. It also argues against attributing the role of Messiah to Jesus.
For this reason Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which is included in this work, is considered the oldest surviving text of a New Testament book in Hebrew.
In 1987, George Howard said (pp. vii, 234) that the Gospel of Matthew in Shem Tob's work long predates the 14th century and may better represent the original text. His view was rejected by W.L. Petersen and Petri Luomanen.[2]
SO... you are basing your theory on a translation produced by a 14th century Jewish writer who argued against the belief that Jesus is God or that Jesus was the Messiah as being based on an original Hebrew manuscript that he had access to in the 14th century but no one else knew about? And this is a good reason to believe that his work is the oldest surviving text of the original Hebrew manuscript that no one has seen or read but this antichrist Shem-Tob?
Really?
For this reason Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which is included in this work, is considered the oldest surviving text of a New Testament book in Hebrew.
In 1987, George Howard said (pp. vii, 234) that the Gospel of Matthew in Shem Tob's work long predates the 14th century and may better represent the original text. His view was rejected by W.L. Petersen and Petri Luomanen.[2]
SO... you are basing your theory on a translation produced by a 14th century Jewish writer who argued against the belief that Jesus is God or that Jesus was the Messiah as being based on an original Hebrew manuscript that he had access to in the 14th century but no one else knew about? And this is a good reason to believe that his work is the oldest surviving text of the original Hebrew manuscript that no one has seen or read but this antichrist Shem-Tob?
Really?
-
1
- Show all
You have a pattern of talking circles. I noticed that before. You will turn things back onto the poster. Good approach and one I like
But I messed up with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wished that never was written.
And the point is not anything.
We know WHO God is = The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit!
My only reason for this is the [WHAT IF] Factor.
To say Matthew was NOT WRITTEN in Hebrew first, is calling many greater men than us as LIARS!
So no reason to think they're ALL LYING!
But the how do you get from the WORD ["GO"] {Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit}?
I'm believing that is an add in from the Greek. There's no way POSSIBLE to ever translate Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit from a single word meaning [GO]!
-
1
- Show all
Let's use this portion...
Eusebius 3.39.16
“But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: ‘So then Matthew {{{{{wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language}}}}}, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’”
and every one interpreted them as he was able.’”
How do you get 9 words from 1?
Eusebius explains how.
Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is 100% DEBATABLE!
Eusebius 3.39.16
“But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: ‘So then Matthew {{{{{wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language}}}}}, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’”
and every one interpreted them as he was able.’”
How do you get 9 words from 1?
Eusebius explains how.
Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is 100% DEBATABLE!
S
Eusebius was from fourth century not first. He was a trusted advisor of Constantine. Known for being biased, not intellectually honest and a terrible historian. This is not supporting your argument. He got his theory from his friend Pamphilius who is the originator of the theory. So nearly 300 years later he invents a theory that up until that time had not been proposed by anyone and that makes it undeniable truth? Could there be some underlying motive? Like "the scripture does not really say that it, it really should say xyz?"
He was probably wrong about his theory that Matthew wrote his original gospel in Hebrew which hardly anyone would be able to read even if his audience was to Jews who mostly spoke Aramaic at home and not Hebrew since the Babylonian excile. It was not until the 8th century that Hebrew was finally restored religiously to the households of the Jews and has seen the restoration we know about today.
He was probably wrong about his theory that Matthew wrote his original gospel in Hebrew which hardly anyone would be able to read even if his audience was to Jews who mostly spoke Aramaic at home and not Hebrew since the Babylonian excile. It was not until the 8th century that Hebrew was finally restored religiously to the households of the Jews and has seen the restoration we know about today.
to show the central nature of Jesus name in all of doctrine . Baptism , prayer , salvation , ect everything that leads to salvation revolves around the name of Jesus Christ
I sort of think of someone were to read the post and think “ what do all these scriptures say “? Then it would be evident .
And sort of read the last sentence I think this forum could use more examples of what scripture actually says and then some will believe and some won’t but those who do will find value
I think the reason I posted this particular thread was because i haven’t heard much about Jesus name and what scripture says about it since I have been here so I thought it would be a good read and consideration for folks .
God bless
I sort of think of someone were to read the post and think “ what do all these scriptures say “? Then it would be evident .
And sort of read the last sentence I think this forum could use more examples of what scripture actually says and then some will believe and some won’t but those who do will find value
I think the reason I posted this particular thread was because i haven’t heard much about Jesus name and what scripture says about it since I have been here so I thought it would be a good read and consideration for folks .
God bless
We can say that everyone was wrong about Matthew not being originally written in Hebrew. I say let's call them ALL LIARS!
I mean Polycarp and Iraneaus were before 1st century, Papias was at the turn of the 1st century...
Papias (the earliest non-Apostolic witness) claims to have received this tradition from John (the Apostle/Evangelist) as a companion and contemporary of Polycarp—John’s disciple. Irenaeus suggests that Matthew wrote his Gospel as early as 41-44 AD prior to leaving Judaea due to the persecution by Herod Agrippa.
Do we believe these EYEWITNESSES are all LIARS?
I mean Polycarp and Iraneaus were before 1st century, Papias was at the turn of the 1st century...
Papias (the earliest non-Apostolic witness) claims to have received this tradition from John (the Apostle/Evangelist) as a companion and contemporary of Polycarp—John’s disciple. Irenaeus suggests that Matthew wrote his Gospel as early as 41-44 AD prior to leaving Judaea due to the persecution by Herod Agrippa.
Do we believe these EYEWITNESSES are all LIARS?
Went right past this golden nugget without catching the [real importance].
What if the Apostle John did tell Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Papias that the [original version of the Book of Matthew] was written in Hebrew?
It seems the ENTIRE TRADITION of this story is ALL BASED UPON THE APOSTLE JOHN.
So, ultimately, to refuse the origins of Matthew as being written in Hebrew is DIRECTLY calling the APOSTLE JOHN THE BELOVED a LIAR!
Are we prepared to do that?
What if the Apostle John did tell Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Papias that the [original version of the Book of Matthew] was written in Hebrew?
It seems the ENTIRE TRADITION of this story is ALL BASED UPON THE APOSTLE JOHN.
So, ultimately, to refuse the origins of Matthew as being written in Hebrew is DIRECTLY calling the APOSTLE JOHN THE BELOVED a LIAR!
Are we prepared to do that?
Because it is NOT. You are trying to present Fake News as truth.
"...The conclusion of R. C. Lenski, G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, Walvoord, Zuck and Schaff is that our current gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. The logical conclusion that follows is that Papias referred to a Semitic Hebrew copy of sayings that Christ made.
Internal Evidence – Textual Considerations
External evidence about the original language of the gospel of Matthew has been considered. Now lets examine some evidence within the gospel of Matthew. That is, our examination is not complete unless we consider both external and internal evidence. Emerton, Cranfield and Stanton make that point when they write,
"Combining the external and internal evidence, then, the situation would appear to be this: the external evidence points to a Palestinian or Hellenistic-Jewish author who wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic., the internal to someone who wrote in Greek . . . . It is, accordingly no surprise to learn that many modern scholars have come to reject the external evidence altogether . . ." [6]
The message is that the internal evidence is more weighty in this discussion. R. C. Lenski makes an important statement that will help us understand that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and is not a translation from Aramaic,
If our Greek Matthew is a translation, it ought to be easy to demonstrate this linguistically. A book the size of Matthew’s would afford all manner of evidence that it was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original if this were the case.[7]
His comment simply states that we should be able to look at Matthew and find evidence that it was not translated from Aramaic but was originally written in Greek. Consequently, we will examine one important internal evidence. If Matthew was written in Aramaic and not Greek, then one should expect to find evidence that this occurred. One would expect to find problematic translations from Aramaic into the Greek language. But when we consider the Greek copies of Matthew, we find an amazing fact. Matthew inserts Aramaic into his text and explains the meaning of the words. Why would he do that if the language of the original Matthew was written for and distributed to Aramaic readers?
For example, consider Matthew 27:46 in which the apostle inserts the Aramaic words “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” into the Greek text of Matthew and then explains the meaning of the Aramaic words.
R. C. Lenski makes this helpful comment, 'Later in the second century, around A.D. 180, Irenaeus in Her. 3.1.1 reports that Matthew wrote “a gospel . . . for the Hebrews in their own language”. The language overlap with Papias suggests dependence either on Papias or on a common source. The important difference is that Irenaeus is referring to a Gospel, not simply to a collection of sayings . . . The difficulty for us is that the Greek Gospel of Matthew shows not the slightest sign of having been translated from a Semitic language'.[8]
Conclusion:
W. Graham Scroggie offers a positive perspective on the issue. He states that the Aramaic logia and Greek gospel show that there were two languages at the time of Christ.
A Hebrew collection of Logia, and our Greek Gospel, serve to show that at the time of Christ two languages were spoken by Jews. Aramaic was the language of the common people, and Greek was the literary language, so that those who spoke Aramaic could read Greek.[9]
In summary, the external and internal evidence points to the possibility of an Aramaic logia and a Greek gospel. The Greek gospel of Matthew is what we possess today. The following quotes will demonstrate that this is the conclusion of the majority of biblical scholars. Bruce M. Metzger, R. C. Lenski and John Nolland agree that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Greek...
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...pel-of-matthew-originally-written-in-aramaic/
It should be of great concern when people try to overturn that which is already established through Scripture, and undermine the faith of others. The fact that the Greek Orthodox Church practiced trine-immersion is something which cannot be ignored.
"...The conclusion of R. C. Lenski, G. K. Beale, D. A. Carson, Walvoord, Zuck and Schaff is that our current gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. The logical conclusion that follows is that Papias referred to a Semitic Hebrew copy of sayings that Christ made.
Internal Evidence – Textual Considerations
External evidence about the original language of the gospel of Matthew has been considered. Now lets examine some evidence within the gospel of Matthew. That is, our examination is not complete unless we consider both external and internal evidence. Emerton, Cranfield and Stanton make that point when they write,
"Combining the external and internal evidence, then, the situation would appear to be this: the external evidence points to a Palestinian or Hellenistic-Jewish author who wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic., the internal to someone who wrote in Greek . . . . It is, accordingly no surprise to learn that many modern scholars have come to reject the external evidence altogether . . ." [6]
The message is that the internal evidence is more weighty in this discussion. R. C. Lenski makes an important statement that will help us understand that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek and is not a translation from Aramaic,
If our Greek Matthew is a translation, it ought to be easy to demonstrate this linguistically. A book the size of Matthew’s would afford all manner of evidence that it was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original if this were the case.[7]
His comment simply states that we should be able to look at Matthew and find evidence that it was not translated from Aramaic but was originally written in Greek. Consequently, we will examine one important internal evidence. If Matthew was written in Aramaic and not Greek, then one should expect to find evidence that this occurred. One would expect to find problematic translations from Aramaic into the Greek language. But when we consider the Greek copies of Matthew, we find an amazing fact. Matthew inserts Aramaic into his text and explains the meaning of the words. Why would he do that if the language of the original Matthew was written for and distributed to Aramaic readers?
For example, consider Matthew 27:46 in which the apostle inserts the Aramaic words “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” into the Greek text of Matthew and then explains the meaning of the Aramaic words.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46 (NASB)
If the original version of Matthew was written in Aramaic, then there would be no need to explain the Aramaic words to Aramaic readers. But if Matthew was written in Greek, then it makes sense that the Aramaic words would have to be explained. Further, if the Greek is an accurate translation of an Aramaic original why state what Jesus spoke in Aramaic? That is, Matthew would not have needed to explain the words to Aramaic readers, but he would have to for Greek readers.R. C. Lenski makes this helpful comment, 'Later in the second century, around A.D. 180, Irenaeus in Her. 3.1.1 reports that Matthew wrote “a gospel . . . for the Hebrews in their own language”. The language overlap with Papias suggests dependence either on Papias or on a common source. The important difference is that Irenaeus is referring to a Gospel, not simply to a collection of sayings . . . The difficulty for us is that the Greek Gospel of Matthew shows not the slightest sign of having been translated from a Semitic language'.[8]
Conclusion:
W. Graham Scroggie offers a positive perspective on the issue. He states that the Aramaic logia and Greek gospel show that there were two languages at the time of Christ.
A Hebrew collection of Logia, and our Greek Gospel, serve to show that at the time of Christ two languages were spoken by Jews. Aramaic was the language of the common people, and Greek was the literary language, so that those who spoke Aramaic could read Greek.[9]
In summary, the external and internal evidence points to the possibility of an Aramaic logia and a Greek gospel. The Greek gospel of Matthew is what we possess today. The following quotes will demonstrate that this is the conclusion of the majority of biblical scholars. Bruce M. Metzger, R. C. Lenski and John Nolland agree that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Greek...
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...pel-of-matthew-originally-written-in-aramaic/
It should be of great concern when people try to overturn that which is already established through Scripture, and undermine the faith of others. The fact that the Greek Orthodox Church practiced trine-immersion is something which cannot be ignored.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
S
I think it is you that is going right past the facts when you ignore the data that suggest that the original theory of Matthew being written in Hebrew came from Pamphilias in the 4th century and ruins your connection to an invented testimony of John that does not exist like the phantom Hebrew manuscript.
There is no testimony from John to this effect or from Polycarp for that matter.
And don't get too enamored with the early Church writers. You will soon discover that most of them wrote some things and had some opinions that you will find quite erroneous. Why should these men be considered GREATER than us? Some of them were as awful at hermeneutics as any Catholic bishop of later years. They were not greater than us. Their writings survived when others did not, that is the only reason they are known. Their value is in contributing to what "some" thought and argued about doctrinally during their specific lifetime but they are only one voice that survived because of their writings not because they were considered the Best of their day. There were many others who may have been much more excellent in biblical interpretation and more in line with what Paul taught but did not write or their writings did not survive. We have a tendency to romanticize the past, even our own.
There is no testimony from John to this effect or from Polycarp for that matter.
And don't get too enamored with the early Church writers. You will soon discover that most of them wrote some things and had some opinions that you will find quite erroneous. Why should these men be considered GREATER than us? Some of them were as awful at hermeneutics as any Catholic bishop of later years. They were not greater than us. Their writings survived when others did not, that is the only reason they are known. Their value is in contributing to what "some" thought and argued about doctrinally during their specific lifetime but they are only one voice that survived because of their writings not because they were considered the Best of their day. There were many others who may have been much more excellent in biblical interpretation and more in line with what Paul taught but did not write or their writings did not survive. We have a tendency to romanticize the past, even our own.