Pentecostalism's sketchy origins

  • 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.

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
What do you mean by "filled with the Holy Spirit?" And how do they know they haven't been filled?

A person can be filled with the Holy Spirit and not necessarily have an earth-shattering experience. They have to take it on faith. But if a person wants more of the Holy Spirit, all they have to do is ask:

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"—Luke 11:15
I don't know other than what they tell me and how they think towards it.



Why? Why is this amazing?
Because the majority of Denominations that oppose such things as laughing, running, falling down, Speaking in Tongues, etc and have used Wesley in their examples of thwarting these things, really have no clue one of their Denominational Founding Fathers approved of it.

It's like African Americans saying Joe Biden isn't racist, but he opposed his own children from being segregated in the 1970's and made the statement he didn't want his children in a [Jungle Environment].

Both scenarios are completely priceless.
 

Aidan1

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2021
1,219
548
113
I can often hear Satan hissing,Sounds like a serpent. I don't understand what Satan wants to say. how Eve understand it?[/QUOTE
He was talking and not hissing. Today he is talking too.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,433
880
113
London
You sure read a lot into my posts that was not there.

My husband has never said to anyone, including me, that he has the gift of helps. He just shushes me up when I say it, so I stopped because it made him uncomfortable. He has never told anyone about his work around the church. The only people that know were the coordinators and the guys he worked with.

When he had the grand opening for the new kitchen, the boss had him and other man go up to the front. The other fellow was a shy as my husband. Neither said a word. The gift of helps is a very quiet ministry! He never said a word to anyone that he did free labour for 6 months there. You really struck out on this flight of fantasy and got it wrong!

As for me, I shared my qualifications to be a teacher, because I have completed the course work and got a professional teacher's certificate. But more important, I taught and was paid for 10 years. Then RA struck me down. God had arranged for me to get my minimum 10 years in, so I was able to stay on disability for 19 years, and then switch to pension. We lived for years with zero money in the bank. When I was able to teach, it put us in a different situation. I praise God that he worked things out for good.

As for 15 years in A Pentecostal church? No, 6 churches. We moved a lot with my husband's work in the early years. We were in independent Pentecostal churches, PAOC (connected to AoG) the APOC (a non-dispensationalist charismatic church) another PAOC, and another move and another PAOC, and a Vineyard church, where the ministry staff told me deliberate lies.

And that is why I complain. I had a good opportunity to see what was going on in 3 Pentecostal denominations and one independent. And every one of them had unbelievable issues. And the solution was always the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Only it never was. They were all composed of immature people, who had not grown spiritually in their lives. Some of the pastors were very Spirit led men, some were so carnal is was so shocking. No where did I see any attempt to teach doctrine, Scripture, prayer, etc.

Plus, we have been in 4 non-charismatic churches. One was the Evangelical Free, where I finally heard real exegetical preaching. The pastor was working in his PhD, and it really showed. We moved a few more times, and ended up in 3 different Baptist denominations, including SBC, and I went to their seminary and got my MDiv. Another pastor had a PhD in preaching in one of those Baptist churches and he was phenomenal. Plus, he had a year long pastor-led initiative to get people reading the Bible, and another year long-initiative to work on prayer. If I could pastor a church, those were the things I would have done. There is no way to learn about God better, than reading the Bible and praying. He also taught doctrine. The Baptist church I am in since we moved here 6 years ago has me on the preaching team, and God has been good to give me excellent direction!

Finally, I took a bunch of courses through the PAOC. I found out it was not that these churches lost strong doctrine and sanctification, they never had it in the first place. I recently heard a Pentecostal pastor talking about sanctification. I do hope charismatics move in that direction. I think it would change these churches to have good doctrine! It might radically change the kingdom of God!
I did not say either you or your husband were proud and boastful, I said somebody could make a case out for it. You certainly do have a high regard education.

It amazes me that so many of the top reformed preachers in America [I never can recall their names] came to the Lord and progressed in the ministry through Charismatic or Pentecostal outreaches. Now they not only have disassociated themselves from their roots they have in some cases become arch critics. That is something I don't like much. Spiritually it is not a correct decision, it is not the way God works.

They were reached and added to the Pentecostal movement that they might be a blessing to that movement.

Have they learned better theology? better doctrines? well good for them, I'm pleased for them. I learned that better theology myself. Perhaps one day these grand brethren will capture the spirit Moses had when he went out and looked upon his brethren and saw their sorrows and their burdens.

God's people are not the educated elite, they are the poor ignorant folk by and large, the foolish ... hey I'm one of them, I'm talking about myself, we don't have airs and graces [but I've learned a few praise the Lord]

These are the folks who find a home among the Pentecostals. Love them
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
1,433
880
113
London
I was baptised in the Holy Spirit Christmas Eve 1974. I spoke in tongues for several years, but the desire went away. The most spiritual man I ever knew was baptised in the Spirit about the same time, but he never spoke in tongues. Some Pentecostals insist that tongues is the true sign that a person has received the Spirit. Some say that you are not saved unless you speak in tongues.

The overemphasis on tongues has lead to many problems and heresies. The wrong teaching on how to be baptised in the Holy Spirit has also led to problems. A friend of mine "spoke in tongues" for some years, a result of going forward at a meeting. She was told not to speak English. She babbled some strange "words" and that was it. Except she was not even born again. I've heard similar stories from a number of people.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a vital part of Christian life. That's why Satan does his best to muddy the waters and lead people into error. Spiritual gifts are the work of the Holy Spirit. God looks for fruit, not gifts. Fruit is eternal, gifts are for the work of the kingdom here and now.
God bless you.

Do I know you? have we ever met? no of course not, so I can't sit in judgement of you [not that I want to] but you say your desire to pray in tongues waned and that is different to the apostle Paul. What else has waned?

Here is the most common experience that God's people have.

Their first love, the joy, the ardour, the excitement of their first experience wanes, how often and many times the scripture warns us and exhorts us to constantly remember and renew our first love ... so I am not accusing or judging you when I wonder that desire to pray in tongues went away.

Our love for the Lord and our walk with Him grows sweeter as we get older but when I look back at those early days when my life was turned upside down, the way I was then, the things I did, I wonder if I could ever be like that again. I made a great many mistakes in those days too, some of them serious.

The greatest strength of the Pentecostal movement is also it's greatest weakness. It came up among the Holiness movement of the 19th century, that has always been it's strength. Full surrender and holiness were their watchword. But the weakness of the Holiness crowd has always been their theology which is rooted in Arminian doctrine.

If Arminian theology could be rooted out of the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches 99% of the bad doctrine and mischievous practice which have brought embarrassment upon the movement would evaporate like the morning mist.

Altar calls would be one of the first thing to go, calling somebody to the front to receive from the Lord whether it be salvation, sanctification, the baptism or gifts, all that would go. Instead the preacher would preach the truth and God would be free to administer that truth among the people as He wills.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
1,002
366
83
Because the majority of Denominations that oppose such things as laughing, running, falling down, Speaking in Tongues, etc and have used Wesley in their examples of thwarting these things, really have no clue one of their Denominational Founding Fathers approved of it.

It's like African Americans saying Joe Biden isn't racist, but he opposed his own children from being segregated in the 1970's and made the statement he didn't want his children in a [Jungle Environment].

Both scenarios are completely priceless.
Oh, I see now. Thanks. :)
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
1,002
366
83
Pentecostalism pre dates Parham, you have to argue from scripture. I was saved and baptised in the Holy Spirit in my own home.
How do you figure? From what then does it date?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,425
2,594
113
First of all, the Bible you're most likely using, the KJV, doesn't even match the original Hebrew Scrolls that have been copied over and over word for word by the sofers since Yahweh handed them down. And concerning the New Testament, the KJV is not using the Hebrew Version of Matthew. And if you compare Mark through Revelation to the oldest known Greek Bibles [Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus] the KJV has several add ins these original Bibles never had.

So it's a true Mystery that you believe you know any truth at all!
Matthew was written in Greek, even though it was written to the Jewish people. There are no extant copies anywhere of a Hebrew Matthew. Likely they didn't translate it into Hebrew, because more people read Greek, after Alexander the Great in the 3rd century B.C., Hellenized the world, including their language. Of course the boys who studied Hebrew in school, to read the Torah, but that probably would only have happened in the bigger cities, like Jerusalem.

Further, Jesus and his disciples quoted the LXX or Greek Septuagint 80% of the time, and the Masoretic Hebrew OT only 20% of the time. The LXX was translated in the 3rd century B.C., because the Jews were already losing their Hebrew, and Greek was the "common" or Koine language spoken throughout the Roman Empire. In fact, Greek was the language everyone spoke, and that aided the spread of the Gospel, more than any other time after Jesus died & was resurrected. Paul could go into a new town in Asia Minor, Greece or Rome, and preach the same gospel in the same language everywhere. The Masoretic text was completed in 800-1000 AD. That was when the vowel pointings were added, because Hebrew as a language was dead. The points helped to pronounce Hebrew, and were essential in understanding verb tenses and noun cases.

However, I do agree the KJV has many additions, because it was translated from corrupted manuscripts, and copyists mistakes for 500 years. I'm glad modern scholars have been able to compare the 6000 different extant manuscripts, put them in the right time period, families, and places. We know so much more about how to translate the Bible closer to the original autographs, through lower criticism, which just means the art and science of comparing manuscripts, nothing to do with doctrine or theology!
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,425
2,594
113
It's a well known Fact that Yeshua and His Disciples spoke Aramaic. the Town of Nazareth where Yeshua read from Isaiah is an Aramaic Speaking Township. We know that Peter could not speak/nor write in Greek and the Book of Mark is Peter's words and Marks translation into Greek. And you think Yeshua read from the Septuagint in Nazareth?

Whew, where did you get these ideas from?
Aramaic was the language the people spoke. But there were many similarities to Hebrew, and everyone learned Greek, because it was the common (Koine) language of the empires. Hebrew was mostly lost by the 1st century AD. Daniel has some sections in Aramaic, and another book.

Not only did Jesus and the disciples read the Septuagint, the quoted from it 80% of the time, and only 20% of the time did they use Hebrew, since it was an almost dead language by Jesus time.

Peter did speak Greek, although 2 Peter was likely written by an amanuensis, as was common in those days. Mark did write Peter's gospel, too.

"If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church."

https://www.catholic.com/qa/in-whic...nd-where-does-the-new-testament-allude-to-the

"Jesus and the Apostles: studied, memorized, used, quoted, and read most often from the Bible of their day, the Septuagint. Since Matthew wrote primarily to convince the Jews that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed their promised Messiah, it follows as a matter of course that his Gospel is saturated with the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament in Matthew, He uses the Hebrew text only 10% of the time, but the Greek LXX translation—90% of the time!

Amazingly, Jesus and Paul used the LXX as their primary Bible. It was just like the Bible each of us holds in our hands, not the original Hebrew Old Testament, but a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. But it was based on exactly the same original and inspired words, and reads just like the Bible we hold in our hands today."

https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/what-bible-did-jesus-use-11638841.html?amp
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
Matthew was written in Greek, even though it was written to the Jewish people. There are no extant copies anywhere of a Hebrew Matthew. Likely they didn't translate it into Hebrew, because more people read Greek, after Alexander the Great in the 3rd century B.C., Hellenized the world, including their language. Of course the boys who studied Hebrew in school, to read the Torah, but that probably would only have happened in the bigger cities, like Jerusalem.

Further, Jesus and his disciples quoted the LXX or Greek Septuagint 80% of the time, and the Masoretic Hebrew OT only 20% of the time. The LXX was translated in the 3rd century B.C., because the Jews were already losing their Hebrew, and Greek was the "common" or Koine language spoken throughout the Roman Empire. In fact, Greek was the language everyone spoke, and that aided the spread of the Gospel, more than any other time after Jesus died & was resurrected. Paul could go into a new town in Asia Minor, Greece or Rome, and preach the same gospel in the same language everywhere. The Masoretic text was completed in 800-1000 AD. That was when the vowel pointings were added, because Hebrew as a language was dead. The points helped to pronounce Hebrew, and were essential in understanding verb tenses and noun cases.

However, I do agree the KJV has many additions, because it was translated from corrupted manuscripts, and copyists mistakes for 500 years. I'm glad modern scholars have been able to compare the 6000 different extant manuscripts, put them in the right time period, families, and places. We know so much more about how to translate the Bible closer to the original autographs, through lower criticism, which just means the art and science of comparing manuscripts, nothing to do with doctrine or theology!


Originally it was written in Hebrew just like Papias of Hierapolis, Origen and Eusebius, Jerome, even Tertullian makes this claim.

Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.​
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]
He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.​
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V​
Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.​
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]​
First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.​
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


I believe the Church Fathers are more credible than your own source, in my opinion.
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
Matthew was written in Greek, even though it was written to the Jewish people. There are no extant copies anywhere of a Hebrew Matthew. Likely they didn't translate it into Hebrew, because more people read Greek, after Alexander the Great in the 3rd century B.C., Hellenized the world, including their language. Of course the boys who studied Hebrew in school, to read the Torah, but that probably would only have happened in the bigger cities, like Jerusalem.

Further, Jesus and his disciples quoted the LXX or Greek Septuagint 80% of the time, and the Masoretic Hebrew OT only 20% of the time. The LXX was translated in the 3rd century B.C., because the Jews were already losing their Hebrew, and Greek was the "common" or Koine language spoken throughout the Roman Empire. In fact, Greek was the language everyone spoke, and that aided the spread of the Gospel, more than any other time after Jesus died & was resurrected. Paul could go into a new town in Asia Minor, Greece or Rome, and preach the same gospel in the same language everywhere. The Masoretic text was completed in 800-1000 AD. That was when the vowel pointings were added, because Hebrew as a language was dead. The points helped to pronounce Hebrew, and were essential in understanding verb tenses and noun cases.

However, I do agree the KJV has many additions, because it was translated from corrupted manuscripts, and copyists mistakes for 500 years. I'm glad modern scholars have been able to compare the 6000 different extant manuscripts, put them in the right time period, families, and places. We know so much more about how to translate the Bible closer to the original autographs, through lower criticism, which just means the art and science of comparing manuscripts, nothing to do with doctrine or theology!
A more completed list:


Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]


He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V


Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]


First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


Didache
This version of the Lord’s Prayer is different from the one found in the Canonical Gospels. For this reason, some believe it is ‘possibly’ from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew . It is interesting to compare this fragment with GHeb-47, which confirms that this Lord’s Prayer was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Ignatius
This fragment from Ignatius has caused much controversy among scholars because the term “bodiless demon” is used. We know that this excerpt is not from the Canonical Gospels, nor would this term be used in Hebrew. Thus, some have argued that this fragment was written in Syriac but with Hebrew letters.

Jerome affirms “bodiless demon” is in the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Polycarp
Born some thirty years after the crucifixion, Polycarp is an important link to the Apostolic Age. A strong defender of Orthodoxy, he seems to have been aware of the Gospel of the Hebrews written by Matthew.


Justin
The Church Fathers explain that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was sometimes referred to as the Gospel of the Apostles. Justin cites as his authority the “Apostles of our Christ” and the “Gospel of the Apostles.” (See GHeb-55) Also, Jesus being ‘begotten’ at His baptism is unique to the Hebrew Gospel.


Irenaeus
GHeb-11 Here Irenaeus states that the Ebionite community uses only the Gospel of Matthew! Other Church Fathers confirm what he writes, but say the Ebionites only use the Gospel of the Hebrews, making it ‘probable’ that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by Matthew. It is highly unlikely than he is referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel (see Epiphanius and Eusebius).

GHeb-12 Irenaeus states that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect. Biblical scholars agree that Irenaeus cannot be referring to the Canonical Matthean Gospel, which has been shown to be composed in Greek by a person other than Matthew. This raises the ‘probability’ that Irenaeus is referring to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Pantaenus
GHeb-14 This excerpt explains why those who were associated with the school of Alexandria had such extensive knowledge of the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew


Tertullian
GHeb-15 Scholars say that this quote is from the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.


Hegesippus
A contemporary of Irenaeus, Hegesippus was a master of Syriac and Hebrew. He was familiar with Jewish oral tradition as well as Hebrew Christianity, and, more particularly, the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

GHeb-16 This fragment directly cites the Gospel of the Hebrews.


Clement of Alexandria
GHeb-17 and 18 and 19

These refer to the Gospel of the Hebrews. From Clements’s text it would appear that these teachings are familiar to Clements’s readers. ‘Seeking until one finds’ and ‘seeing God in your brother’ are themes developed in the Canonical New Testament. Also, it is clear that the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew .


Epiphanius
GHeb-31 Epiphanius was probably the first to write of the Hebrew Christian community called the Nazarenes. They had a copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, written by “Matthew quite complete in Hebrew."


Didymus
Didymus was a disciple of Origen. He was also the Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Therefore, he had access to the scholarly works collected by his predecessors, Pantaenus, Clement and Origen. Thus he was familiar with and had access to the Authentic Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
No opinion of a Greek Student will change my mind towards the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew when the evidence I have provided is literally outstanding and substantial beyond question!
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,425
2,594
113
Originally it was written in Hebrew just like Papias of Hierapolis, Origen and Eusebius, Jerome, even Tertullian makes this claim.

Quotes by Church Fathers
Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.​
— Jerome: De viris inlustribus (On Illustrious Men), chapter III.[7]
He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.​
— Jerome, 382 CE, On Illustrious Men, Book V​
Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.​
— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]​
First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers.​
— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 25, Section 4[8][9]


I believe the Church Fathers are more credible than your own source, in my opinion.
Do you know anything about Jerome? He translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin, a Bible known as the Latin Vulgate- 4 centuries after Christ! Not really a contemporary source! Plus, the Vulgate is renowned for its mistakes, because Jerome didn't know Hebrew or Greek well.

Not a person I am going to trust for anything! Plus, there is not one extant copy anywhere of Matthew in Hebrew, whereas there are thousands of very early Greek manuscripts of Matthew.

You are reading into the Bible. You are reading INTO the Bible something that is not there, based on your erroneous beliefs. I suppose you don't read Greek or Hebrew, which really holds back understanding the Bible on a deeper level. It's why you have to resort to quoting Jerome, in English, too!
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
1,002
366
83
No opinion of a Greek Student will change my mind towards the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew when the evidence I have provided is literally outstanding and substantial beyond question!
You don't have "evidence." You have claims. Evidence would be a manuscript or manuscript fragment that predates any Greek manuscripts or fragments. A lot of people claim to have seen Big Foot.

If it makes you sleep better to think these claims are evidence then by all means don't let me discourage you.
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
Do you know anything about Jerome? He translated the Old and New Testaments into Latin, a Bible known as the Latin Vulgate- 4 centuries after Christ! Not really a contemporary source! Plus, the Vulgate is renowned for its mistakes, because Jerome didn't know Hebrew or Greek well.

Not a person I am going to trust for anything! Plus, there is not one extant copy anywhere of Matthew in Hebrew, whereas there are thousands of very early Greek manuscripts of Matthew.

You are reading into the Bible. You are reading INTO the Bible something that is not there, based on your erroneous beliefs. I suppose you don't read Greek or Hebrew, which really holds back understanding the Bible on a deeper level. It's why you have to resort to quoting Jerome, in English, too!
What I know is over 30 accounts exist from 1st to 3rd Centuries claiming a Hebrew Matthew to exist. Their writings are closer to the source of truth than what someone 2,000 years later thinks. Not ALL of THEM are lying!
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
You don't have "evidence." You have claims. Evidence would be a manuscript or manuscript fragment that predates any Greek manuscripts or fragments. A lot of people claim to have seen Big Foot.

If it makes you sleep better to think these claims are evidence then by all means don't let me discourage you.
Why should I not trust the Church Fathers?
They are responsible for your creeds and were present to vote for the Bible you're using today?
If you don't trust the Church Fathers, how do you trust your Bible?
 

AandW

Well-known member
Jun 9, 2021
1,640
364
83
Even the DIDACHE has Verses only found in the Hebrew Matthew Version.
Is the DIDACHE now a LIAR too?
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
1,002
366
83
Why should I not trust the Church Fathers?
They are responsible for your creeds and were present to vote for the Bible you're using today?
If you don't trust the Church Fathers, how do you trust your Bible?
I wouldn't say don't trust them, but don't just take their word for it either.

What does the Holy Spirit tell you? He's the Spirit of Truth. Have you done hard investigation to learn the truth asking Him to lead you to the truth; or, have you only listened to one side. If you've done a thorough investigation, considering everything from all angles, and believe it's more likely true than not, then you can say yes, the church "fathers" were right all long. But it's not wise to just take someone's word for it, even if there's apparently a cloud of witnesses. Like your mother used to say, if everyone else is jumping off a cliff should you do it? Maybe they don't say that anymore. :giggle:
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
1,002
366
83
Even the DIDACHE has Verses only found in the Hebrew Matthew Version.
Is the DIDACHE now a LIAR too?
I've read the "Didache" bit you posted above. Can you help me understand? What is GHeb-47, and how does it confirm that the Lord's prayer in the Didache is from the Hebrew version of Matthew?

And what is "this fragment" which it says was compared to GHeb47?