In The name of the Father , Son and Holy Ghost

[Scribe]

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]!

I feel that I address directly the things that are presented and I am not trying to make someone look bad or insult them. I suppose that my main motive in engaging with you on this topic in particular would be that you might not be too convinced that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and that the Greek manuscripts we have in extant are corrupt and not what God would say to you when you read them. I would hope that you would realize that the majority of textual critics have rejected such a theory as an original Hebrew manuscript and that such a theory was based on Pamphilias in the 4th century and that it never was a majority view at all as you seem to have been convinced of. This might help you to embrace the Greek manuscripts in extant as inspired and worthy of giving yourself wholly to their study as indeed the Word of God, infallible and authoritative.

 

[KingdomBrat]

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.

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.

Do i believe modern day scholars who believe having the Matthew as Hebrew will change their opinion towards a triune God, or do I believe Papias, Polycarp, Ireneaus Disciples of John who claim John states otherwise?

I believe John bears more weight than today's scholars!

 

[KingdomBrat]

Nehemiah,

So your argument is based off...the idealism that Papias is discussing Semitic Sayings, not the Book of Matthew he claims MATTHEW wrote in 41-44 A.D.

That's rich, that's not exactly what I would base my theory upon.

Good luck with that circus joke!

 

[KingdomBrat]

Nehemiah,

So your argument is based off...the idealism that Papias is discussing Semitic Sayings, not the Book of Matthew he claims MATTHEW wrote in 41-44 A.D.

That's rich, that's not exactly what I would base my theory upon.

Good luck with that circus joke!

BTW, Nehemiah, can You show me this Semitic Book of Sayings written by Matthew that would date around 41-44 A.D. because I have a fragments dating then of a Hebrew written Book of Matthew from that time frame?

 

[KingdomBrat]

Here's what evidence Papias offers.

52: 'He asserted that an old Gospel of Matthew, presumed to have been written in Hebrew or rather in Aramaic and taken to lie behind the Nazarene Gospel

Now, Papia uses the term {{old GOSPEL of Matthew}} in his reference here ^

How then can Scholars take Papias claiming [old] Gospel of Matthew for Semitic Sayings?

 

[Scribe]

Here's what evidence Papias offers.

52: 'He asserted that an old Gospel of Matthew, presumed to have been written in Hebrew or rather in Aramaic and taken to lie behind the Nazarene Gospel

Now, Papia uses the term GOSPEL of Matthew in his reference here ^

How then can Scholars take Papias claiming Gospel of Matthew for Semitic Sayings?

but Papias didn't have such a copy. He did not have it in possession nor had he ever seen it. He never said John told him this.

 

[KingdomBrat]

Jerome (374-420 A.D.) claims to have seen the Hebrew Gospel from Matthew, and wrote he had translated it and on several occasions he quoted from it (On Famous Men 2 & 3).


So, is Jerome's Hebrew Book of Matthew another stint for Semitic Writings hahahahaha

This is getting to be a joke around here!

I suppose in 2,000 years I'll be called a liar by scholars and that morons will believe them too!

 

[KingdomBrat]

but Papias didn't have such a copy. He did not have it in possession nor had he ever seen it. He never said John told him this.

I didn't say he saw it. But I did later in another post following say that Jerome claims to have not only seen it SEVERAL TIMES BUT TRANSLATED IT.

 

[KingdomBrat]

but Papias didn't have such a copy. He did not have it in possession nor had he ever seen it. He never said John told him this.

I love this post here!

What is established between Scribe and Myself is that we both accept Papias making a claim towards the existence of a Hebrew written Matthew, and he being the Disciple of John, was given this insight from John.


So, let's stop here and say this much is 100% fact.
That makes it that a Hebrew Copy of Matthew existed first before Greek.

Once we know this, it doesn't even concern you that the Greek copies are not word for word, Eusibus later claims PEOPLE TRANSLATED IT AS BEST THEY COULD, which means, IT'S NOT WORD FOR WORD THE SAME AS MATTHEW WROTE.

Does that mean having 85% of the Book of Matthew filled with translated errors in the Greek is still better than the original?
What about the 15% we're missing?
We just don't care?

 

[Scribe]

I didn't say he saw it. But I did later in another post following say that Jerome claims to have not only seen it SEVERAL TIMES BUT TRANSLATED IT.

You may not know this but volumes of books have been written on this subject.
Don't you think that if your argument was as obvious as you are trying to present it that there would have been a consensus among most scholars that it was true. But the opposite has been the consensus, that the Greek Manuscripts are the copies of the autograph.
Maybe you will change your mind as you keep reading all of the reasons presented by textual critics. I admit that I rely on the expertise of others on something like this.

I know that Gordon Fee is one of the great textual critics of modern times. I will see if he has written anything about this.

 

[KingdomBrat]

You may not know this but volumes of books have been written on this subject.
Don't you think that if your argument was as obvious as you are trying to present it that there would have been a consensus among most scholars that it was true. But the opposite has been the consensus, that the Greek Manuscripts are the copies of the autograph.
Maybe you will change your mind as you keep reading all of the reasons presented by textual critics. I admit that I rely on the expertise of others on something like this.

I know that Gordon Fee is one of the great textual critics of modern times. I will see if he has written anything about this.

I do know there is a Library out there.
And I do know most deny the Hebrew Copy of Matthew.
But in the chronicles of the Church History from Christ till now, we have numerous [literally over 17 accounts claiming this Hebrew Matthew existed first].
Personally, to deny such, in my opinion, is for fear of Matthew 28:19. I think Trinitarians {I am one} are LYING THEIR AZZES OFF!

 

[Scribe]

I love this post here!

What is established between Scribe and Myself is that we both accept Papias making a claim towards the existence of a Hebrew written Matthew, and he being the Disciple of John, was given this insight from John.


So, let's stop here and say this much is 100% fact.
That makes it that a Hebrew Copy of Matthew existed first before Greek.

Once we know this, it doesn't even concern you that the Greek copies are not word for word, Eusibus later claims PEOPLE TRANSLATED IT AS BEST THEY COULD, which means, IT'S NOT WORD FOR WORD THE SAME AS MATTHEW WROTE.

Does that mean having 85% of the Book of Matthew filled with translated errors in the Greek is still better than the original?
What about the 15% we're missing?
We just don't care?

Are you ok with believing that the original Hebrew manuscript can be found in the translation from the 14th century and this is the perfect translation of Matthew, uncorrupted?

 

[KingdomBrat]

It sickens me because what are these big television Churches and Preachers we generally call LIARS and fake have in common?
These Liars are Trinitarians, just like us here on this forum!
I think Trinitarians have LIED THEIR AZZES OFF for 2,000 years, in my opinion and continue to do so!

 

[KingdomBrat]

Are you ok with believing that the original Hebrew manuscript can be found in the translation from the 14th century and this is the perfect translation of Matthew, uncorrupted?

No, I just used that for one example of what is out there.

 

[Scribe]

No, I just used that for one example of what is out there.

Then are you concluding that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but that the Greek translations are corrupt. And if so how can you rely on anything in the book of Matthew to not be corrupt? Why just Matthew 28:19?

 

[KingdomBrat]

Then are you concluding that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but that the Greek translations are corrupt. And if so how can you rely on anything in the book of Matthew to not be corrupt? Why just Matthew 28:19?

No, I am concluding that it is written:
1) Hebrew Copy of Matthew existed around 41-44 A.D.
2) Papias, Polcarp, Irenaeus confirm its existence as Disciples of John, info passed down from John to his Disciples.
3) Later on, it's written by Eusibus: People did their best to copy and translate it

That's what I believe.

And within all of that, I do believe if someone lists people [did their best to translate] to mean exactly that. That it has never been properly translated!

 

[Scribe]

No, I am concluding that it is written:
1) Hebrew Copy of Matthew existed around 41-44 A.D.
2) Papias, Polcarp, Irenaeus confirm its existence as Disciples of John, info passed down from John to his Disciples.
3) Later on, it's written by Eusibus: People did their best to copy and translate it

That's what I believe.

And within all of that, I do believe if someone lists people [did their best to translate] to mean exactly that. That it has never been properly translated!

I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in their original autographs. I believe that we have enough copies of Matthew from the original manuscripts in Greek to conclude that we have the inspired text preserved and can firmly stand on Matt 28:19 as authentic and trustworthy.

I guess we will find out soon enough. I wonder how many of these questions will matter when we see Jesus? Probably none of them.

 

[KingdomBrat]

Then are you concluding that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, but that the Greek translations are corrupt. And if so how can you rely on anything in the book of Matthew to not be corrupt? Why just Matthew 28:19?

Jerome claims to have not only seen, held, touched, read, translated this original Hebrew Written Version of Matthew, has done so on [several occasions].

Now, what if the Copy that Jerome is claiming here, is this same Copy that later is presented in the 14th Century?

 

[KingdomBrat]

I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the scriptures in their original autographs. I believe that we have enough copies of Matthew from the original manuscripts in Greek to conclude that we have the inspired text preserved and can firmly stand on Matt 28:19 as authentic and trustworthy.

I guess we will find out soon enough. I wonder how many of these questions will matter when we see Jesus? Probably none of them.

These questions don't mean squat when both sides [ONENESS/TRINITARIAN'S] preach must Accept Christ to come to the Father. The rest is icing on the cake. And we believe [it is not even necessary to be Water Baptized]. So, as long as you go through Christ to get to the Father and either be baptized Titles or one Name only. It really doesn't make any difference here. Both sides are Saved because they went through Christ to come to the Father!

 

[Scribe]

These questions don't mean squat when both sides [ONENESS/TRINITARIAN'S] preach must Accept Christ to come to the Father. The rest is icing on the cake. And we believe [it is not even necessary to be Water Baptized]. So, as long as you go through Christ to get to the Father and either be baptized Titles or one Name only. It really doesn't make any difference here. Both sides are Saved because they went through Christ to come to the Father!

Yes, and most people are never going to comprehend the mystery of Godliness beyond what is written which is a mystery that we accept by faith whether we think we understand it or not.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.