What is the Sacred Name Movement ?

[YankeeGalDownUnder1964]

Please Note i am not here to upset anyone on this
i came out of this movement after 3 years
here is some good biblical teaching on this and why this movement is
leading many Gential Christians away from the Finished work of the Cross !
even to the point telling some that if they dont say the name right they are not Saved !
or blaspheming the Holy Spirit
its just horrible to think that people can set their own ideas and laws and rules
and go so far to think they can add and take out of HIS Word and its Dangerous Christians

please dont get caught up in this
it was so bad my marriage was in danger !
and i was under such condemnation
and fear that when i finally was set free
in Jesus
i cried for months after realizing i was deceived

Jesus said !4 :6 I am the Way the Truth and the Life
only Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior
As Amercian Christians we should not split hairs over how to name Jesus
its WHO GOD IS ! Jesus Christ , and if they dont get this right
they got another Jesus :/
another christ



Here is the information in case someone would like to take a loo


the Sacred Name Movement developed from the Church of God (Seventh Day) in the 1930s. Supposedly, the movement began in response to study of Proverbs 30:4, “What is his name, and what is the name of his son?” The Sacred Name Movement teaches that only “Yahweh” is to be used as the name for God and only “Yahshua” is to be used as the name for Jesus. According to the Sacred Name Movement, the use of any other name is blasphemy.

In addition to a strong emphasis on the use of the original Hebrew names for God and Jesus, the Sacred Name Movement also teaches that followers of Yeshua must obey the Old Testament Law, especially the commands regarding the seventh-day Sabbath, the kosher food laws, and the Jewish festivals.

From the original Sacred Name Movement, several subgroups have formed, including the Assemblies of Yahweh, the Assembly of Yahweh, the House of Yahweh, and Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry.

The Sacred Name Movement errs in many ways. But the primary error is the same as that of the Hebrew Roots Movement. The Sacred Name Movement fails to understand that the Savior did not come to expand Judaism or the Old Covenant. The Savior came to fulfill the Old Covenant and establish the New Covenant. Messiah’s death and resurrection fulfilled the requirements of the Law and freed us from its demands (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). The Old Covenant was but a shadow (Hebrews 8). The New Covenant, established by our Savior/Messiah, is a fulfillment, not a continuation.

The particular focus of the Sacred Name Movement on the names of God and Jesus is unbiblical. The human authors of the Old and New Testaments, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had no qualms about referring to God as Elohim (Hebrew) and Theos (Greek) or referring to the Son as Iesous (Greek). If it is biblically appropriate to use generic terms to refer to God and to use a Greek version of Jesus’ name, why is it wrong, in English, to refer to the Heavenly Father as “God” and the Messiah as “Jesus”? Why would it be wrong to use the Chinese, Spanish, or Russian pronunciation and spelling of those names and titles?

Further, not even the adherents of the Sacred Name Movement can completely agree on what the sacred names actually are. While “Yahweh” and “Yahshua” are the most common, some propose “Yahvah,” “Yahwah,” “Yohwah,” or” Yahowah” for God and “Yeshua” or “Yahoshua” for Jesus. If there is only one non-blasphemous name each for God and Jesus, we better be sure to get it right. Yet adherents of the Sacred Name Movement cannot even agree on the very core of what their movement is supposed to be all about.

The Sacred Name Movement began with an unbiblical premise and has continued by building unbiblical doctrines on top of that premise. Our salvation is not dependent on our ability to properly pronounce God’s name in Hebrew. Our relationship with God is not based on our obedience to the Old Covenant that our Messiah perfectly fulfilled.

 

[JaumeJ]

I love to call Jesus by the closest I am able to His Hebrew name transliterated into English, but that is just howI feel.

I did not know of that cult nor of its requisites. I praise God you are safely out of this type of unspiritual coersion. All glory to our wonderful Father..

 

[AandW]

the Sacred Name Movement developed from the Church of God (Seventh Day) in the 1930s. Supposedly, the movement began in response to study of Proverbs 30:4, “What is his name, and what is the name of his son?” The Sacred Name Movement teaches that only “Yahweh” is to be used as the name for God and only “Yahshua” is to be used as the name for Jesus. According to the Sacred Name Movement, the use of any other name is blasphemy.

I am using this portion to shew just how screwed up this concept is. First of all, Yahweh is Yeshua and Yeshua is Yahweh.

We know from John 8:58 Yeshua said He was [I AM] which is the same I AM found in the Burning Bush story with Moses. But also in Exodus, we learn more about who Yeshua was as He revealed Himself in more depth to Moses.



Verse 2 claims Angel of the Lord:
2 An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within the thorn bush, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, but the thorn bush was not being consumed.
בוַיֵּרָ֠א מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֵלָ֛יו בְּלַבַּת־אֵ֖שׁ מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֑ה וַיַּ֗רְא וְהִנֵּ֤ה הַסְּנֶה֙ בֹּעֵ֣ר בָּאֵ֔שׁ וְהַסְּנֶ֖ה אֵינֶ֥נּוּ אֻכָּֽל:


Verse 4 claims it is the Lord:
4 The Lord saw that he had turned to see, and Elohim called to him from within the thorn bush, and He said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am!"
דוַיַּ֥רְא יְהֹוָ֖ה כִּ֣י סָ֣ר לִרְא֑וֹת וַיִּקְרָא֩ אֵלָ֨יו אֱלֹהִ֜ים מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַסְּנֶ֗ה וַיֹּ֛אמֶר משֶׁ֥ה משֶׁ֖ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי:


Verse 6 the Angel of the Lord, now Lord, claims to be Elohim:
6 And He said, "I am the Elohim of your father, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward Elohim.
ווַיֹּ֗אמֶר אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֔יךָ אֱלֹהֵ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֖ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֣י יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב וַיַּסְתֵּ֤ר משֶׁה֙ פָּנָ֔יו כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א מֵֽהַבִּ֖יט אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִֽים:


Verse 14 the Angel of the Lord, now Lord, now Elohim, claims to be I AM THAT I AM:
14 Elohim said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:


In 3 chapters later this same Angel of the Lord, now Lord, now Elohim named I AM THAT I AM reveals His other name:
2 Elohim spoke to Moses, and He said to him, "I am the Lord.
בוַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־משֶׁ֑ה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֵלָ֖יו אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:

3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty Elohim, but [with] My name YHWH, I did not become known to them.
גוָֽאֵרָ֗א אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־יִצְחָ֥ק וְאֶל־יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י וּשְׁמִ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה לֹ֥א נוֹדַ֖עְתִּי לָהֶֽם:


So from these 6 Verses, the Pre-Incarnate Christ in the Book of Exodus is known as:
1. Angel of the Lord
2. Lord
3. Elohim
4. I AM THAT I AM
5. YHWH [Yahweh]


It's funny this NAME Movement is using the Names of Jesus from the Old Testament and New Testament and believing they are different people. The ignorance is real with this group and Praise God you have escaped it!

 

[JaumeJ]

I love to call Jesus Yeshua because Yeshi means my Redeemer, and that ending is Yah, or I will Be What I will Be.

These are but translated titles of our God, Zephaniah tells us we will all be given a pure tongue to call upon our Father with one accord, that is with one Name, not yet known. Now this is wonderful I believe.

The Angel said to Mary, "You shall call His name Yeshua for He will save His people._ Just wonderful knowing how it traqnslates.

 

[ResidentAlien]

The question I always ask myself is: If Jesus' Hebrew name was so important, why did every single New Testament author refer to Him by the Greek pronunciation?

I've heard everything from, if you don't call Him Yeshua you're not saved to you're really missing out on an amazing blessing if you don't. If calling Jesus Yeshua was necessary for salvation, where are the scriptures? Where does it say: Believe on Yeshua and you will be saved? Where does it say: Oh, by the way, the Jesus we wrote to you about, if you don't call Him Yeshua you're really missing out.

If it's a person's personal preference that's one thing. But to impose it on everyone else is laughable.

 

[JaumeJ]

It is not a matter of pronunciation, it is a matter of the full translation, and in my case, respect for His name, what He was called by family and friends, and of course why the Angel gave this name to Mary.

If you would prefer, call Him by the translation, Redeemer Yahweh. Or Redeemer God...

Iesous, Jesus Jesu, none quite are the same for they do not translate at alll. One must go back to His name from God to have the full meaning.

When believers call Him Jesus, and gthey knwo why, there is not reason to beconcerned, but many do not.

He was named Yeshua for a reason. Oh, and that by God the Father.

 

[ResidentAlien]

It is not a matter of pronunciation, it is a matter of the full translation, and in my case, respect for His name, what He was called by family and friends, and of course why the Angel gave this name to Mary.

Maybe the angel used the name Yeshua, maybe not. What we know for sure is Matthew and Luke wrote Iēsoun. Are you saying they had no respect for His name? If it was so disrespectful, why were they perfectly comfortable with Iēsoun? Matthew was with Jesus for His whole earthly ministry. Surely he would've know if He was offended if someone called Him Jesus.

I agree though, understanding His original name is a helpful insight, but using it doesn't win us any gold stars.

 

[AandW]

Maybe the angel used the name Yeshua, maybe not. What we know for sure is Matthew and Luke wrote Iēsoun. Are you saying they had no respect for His name? If it was so disrespectful, why were they perfectly comfortable with Iēsoun? Matthew was with Jesus for His whole earthly ministry. Surely he would've know if He was offended if someone called Him Jesus.

I agree though, understanding His original name is a helpful insight, but using it doesn't win us any gold stars.

But in my thread [Trusting the Church Fathers], we have hardcore evidence that Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew Language. That means the name " Iēsoun" is a Greek translation of the real name of Yeshua.

 

[JaumeJ]

No I am not and if you read my post you should already understaqnd this. I do not wish to debate with you or anyone else something thaqt I have told you is my preference.
Once more, get this into your head, I do not believe anyoe who calls Jesus Yeshua by Jesus is wrong. It is my preference in the faith given me. YOu may do as you please, but make certain it pleases the One we Love.

 

[ResidentAlien]

But in my thread [Trusting the Church Fathers], we have hardcore evidence that Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew Language. That means the name " Iēsoun" is a Greek translation of the real name of Yeshua.

We don't have any evidence, much less "hardcore" evidence.

Everyone knows Iēsous is the Greek version of Jesus' Hebrew name. Are you now saying this is further proof that Matthew was originally in Hebrew?

 

[AandW]

We don't have any evidence, much less "hardcore" evidence.

Everyone knows Iēsous is the Greek version of Jesus' Hebrew name. Are you now saying this is further proof that Matthew was originally in Hebrew?

There are 4 Codex's representing the Aramaic Written New Testament. This is important because this Version comes from Mattias, the one who replaced Judas in the 12 original Disciples. And if we research Mattias, we will see that he was present several times with Christ as the other 72 Disciples that Christ sent out to spread the Gospel. So Mattias, a natural Speaker of the Aramaic Language [same as Christ and the other 12 Disciples], always refers to Christ's birth name in His Native Aramaic Tongue as Yeshua.

Therefore, if we were to take the Aramaic Version and Hebrew Version we would always find Jesus being called Yeshua. After all, Yeshua literally means Yahweh's Salvation. How can the Name, "Yahweh's Salvation" be any better than that? But the Greek name simply means Jesus. I much prefer Yahweh's Salvation over Jesus!

 

[ResidentAlien]

Okay, so now we not only have Matthew in Hebrew but an Aramaic New Testament by Matthias??? Hmmm...

 

[Nehemiah6]

But in my thread [Trusting the Church Fathers], we have hardcore evidence that Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew Language.

No. What you have is hardcore fantasy. Matthew was written in Greek and TRANSLATED into Aramaic.

Getting back to the title of the thread, since God and Christ know every human language and hear the name of Jesus in every language, any insistence on calling Jesus "Yeshua" is pure nonsense. He is known as "Jesus" by the whole world. And if you want to get right down to it, Yeshua can be written in many ways.

YAH + SHUA = GOD [IS] OUR SALVATION = Yahshua, Yeshua, Yehoshua, Joshua, Jesus, etc. in every language.

Add to that the fact that Jesus has many other names and titles, and as far as God is concerned they are all acceptable and all are applicable. The important thing is what Jesus said -- "If ye believe not that I AM ye shall die in your sins". So those who deny the deity of Christ cannot be saved.

 

[AandW]

No. What you have is hardcore fantasy. Matthew was written in Greek and TRANSLATED into Aramaic.

It's only fantasy when you make it a direct purpose to ignore the writings of Papais.

 

[SophieT]

Please Note i am not here to upset anyone on this
i came out of this movement after 3 years
here is some good biblical teaching on this and why this movement is
leading many Gential Christians away from the Finished work of the Cross !
even to the point telling some that if they dont say the name right they are not Saved !
or blaspheming the Holy Spirit
its just horrible to think that people can set their own ideas and laws and rules
and go so far to think they can add and take out of HIS Word and its Dangerous Christians

please dont get caught up in this
it was so bad my marriage was in danger !
and i was under such condemnation
and fear that when i finally was set free
in Jesus
i cried for months after realizing i was deceived

Jesus said !4 :6 I am the Way the Truth and the Life
only Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior
As Amercian Christians we should not split hairs over how to name Jesus
its WHO GOD IS ! Jesus Christ , and if they dont get this right
they got another Jesus :/
another christ



Here is the information in case someone would like to take a loo


the Sacred Name Movement developed from the Church of God (Seventh Day) in the 1930s. Supposedly, the movement began in response to study of Proverbs 30:4, “What is his name, and what is the name of his son?” The Sacred Name Movement teaches that only “Yahweh” is to be used as the name for God and only “Yahshua” is to be used as the name for Jesus. According to the Sacred Name Movement, the use of any other name is blasphemy.

In addition to a strong emphasis on the use of the original Hebrew names for God and Jesus, the Sacred Name Movement also teaches that followers of Yeshua must obey the Old Testament Law, especially the commands regarding the seventh-day Sabbath, the kosher food laws, and the Jewish festivals.

From the original Sacred Name Movement, several subgroups have formed, including the Assemblies of Yahweh, the Assembly of Yahweh, the House of Yahweh, and Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry.

The Sacred Name Movement errs in many ways. But the primary error is the same as that of the Hebrew Roots Movement. The Sacred Name Movement fails to understand that the Savior did not come to expand Judaism or the Old Covenant. The Savior came to fulfill the Old Covenant and establish the New Covenant. Messiah’s death and resurrection fulfilled the requirements of the Law and freed us from its demands (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). The Old Covenant was but a shadow (Hebrews 8). The New Covenant, established by our Savior/Messiah, is a fulfillment, not a continuation.

The particular focus of the Sacred Name Movement on the names of God and Jesus is unbiblical. The human authors of the Old and New Testaments, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had no qualms about referring to God as Elohim (Hebrew) and Theos (Greek) or referring to the Son as Iesous (Greek). If it is biblically appropriate to use generic terms to refer to God and to use a Greek version of Jesus’ name, why is it wrong, in English, to refer to the Heavenly Father as “God” and the Messiah as “Jesus”? Why would it be wrong to use the Chinese, Spanish, or Russian pronunciation and spelling of those names and titles?

Further, not even the adherents of the Sacred Name Movement can completely agree on what the sacred names actually are. While “Yahweh” and “Yahshua” are the most common, some propose “Yahvah,” “Yahwah,” “Yohwah,” or” Yahowah” for God and “Yeshua” or “Yahoshua” for Jesus. If there is only one non-blasphemous name each for God and Jesus, we better be sure to get it right. Yet adherents of the Sacred Name Movement cannot even agree on the very core of what their movement is supposed to be all about.

The Sacred Name Movement began with an unbiblical premise and has continued by building unbiblical doctrines on top of that premise. Our salvation is not dependent on our ability to properly pronounce God’s name in Hebrew. Our relationship with God is not based on our obedience to the Old Covenant that our Messiah perfectly fulfilled.

I'm certainly thankful you have freedom from that cult. We have had and do have Hebrew Roots or Sabbath keeping law keepers running around in here from time to time or passing through.

you can see some people still think it's all about calling Jesus the right name

smh

 

[JaumeJ]

There was a time in my life time, but a day, when what are referred to as Hish Masses were only given in Latin, otherwise it would have been against the teachings of the RCC.

Does anyone here guarantee that the teachings of the faith of Abraham were notin Hebrew in the Churches of the first centuries? I know there are those here who are so learned they know exactly in which dlanguage the first writings of the books of the New Testament are. Theyi are truly intellectual, and far above seeking spiritua understanding from our Lord, Jesus Yeshua.

 

[Jocund]

"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." - 2 Timothy 2:14 NIV

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's only fantasy when you make it a direct purpose to ignore the writings of Papais.

You need to study this carefully:
Information on Papias
I consider the fragment X of the Roberts-Donaldson collection of fragments to be completely suspect as the alleged words of Papias.

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). ​

​

Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):

What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to "the presbyter" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16). Eusebius separates the statements about Mark and Matthew, but they may have originally followed one another and certainly seem closely related. ​

​

Perhaps the simplest reading of the statement on Mark is that Mark served as Peter's interpreter (possibly in the role of methurgaman, or oral translator) and wrote down what he heard Peter say of the words and deeds of Jesus and that his writing is defective in "order," though not in accuracy or fullness of recollection, because Peter naturally referred to the Lord's logia in a random manner. Some have suspected that Papias did not have in mind the gospel of Mark that we know, but the arguments are tenuous. ​

​

On another point, Kurzinger has attempted to show that Papias was speaking not of translation from the native language of Peter but of presentation of the reports of Peter (an interpretation which he applies also to Papias' statement about Matthew); but this seems to push a rhetorical approach to Papias' terminology too far (Schoedel 1967: 107; Kortner 1983: 203-4). On the other hand, an interpretation in rhetorical terms is somewhat more likely when it comes to the suggestion that Papias meant to say that Peter spoke "in chria-style" rather than "as needs (chriai) dictated." But the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write "in order."

It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made "an ordered arrangement" of the materials) - or perhaps more generally by Papias' own conception of what ought to be included in such an account - and that he had in mind completeness of information as well as "order" in the narrow sense of the term. In any event, Papias is defending Mark in spite of perceived deficiencies.

Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also "made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

 

[AandW]

You need to study this carefully:
Information on Papias
I consider the fragment X of the Roberts-Donaldson collection of fragments to be completely suspect as the alleged words of Papias.

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). ​

​

Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).

Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):

What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to "the presbyter" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16). Eusebius separates the statements about Mark and Matthew, but they may have originally followed one another and certainly seem closely related. ​

​

Perhaps the simplest reading of the statement on Mark is that Mark served as Peter's interpreter (possibly in the role of methurgaman, or oral translator) and wrote down what he heard Peter say of the words and deeds of Jesus and that his writing is defective in "order," though not in accuracy or fullness of recollection, because Peter naturally referred to the Lord's logia in a random manner. Some have suspected that Papias did not have in mind the gospel of Mark that we know, but the arguments are tenuous. ​

​

On another point, Kurzinger has attempted to show that Papias was speaking not of translation from the native language of Peter but of presentation of the reports of Peter (an interpretation which he applies also to Papias' statement about Matthew); but this seems to push a rhetorical approach to Papias' terminology too far (Schoedel 1967: 107; Kortner 1983: 203-4). On the other hand, an interpretation in rhetorical terms is somewhat more likely when it comes to the suggestion that Papias meant to say that Peter spoke "in chria-style" rather than "as needs (chriai) dictated." But the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write "in order."

It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made "an ordered arrangement" of the materials) - or perhaps more generally by Papias' own conception of what ought to be included in such an account - and that he had in mind completeness of information as well as "order" in the narrow sense of the term. In any event, Papias is defending Mark in spite of perceived deficiencies.

Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also "made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

And still JEROME declares he not only saw the Version of Matthew written in Hebrew but also He held it and read it and took notes from it when it was stored in the Library at Ceasaria. So whether if you are suspect or anyone else, Jerome confirms seeing it, touching it, reading from it, and taking notes from it.

 

[YankeeGalDownUnder1964]

sorry but i will stick with the old 1611 King james version
its what i was taught by my 93 year old Grandmother
and preached by her 103 year old father ( my Grandfather )
B Basic I Instructions B Before L Leaving Earth

Jesus said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord'? For he says:

John 13:13
You call Me Teacher and Lord, and rightly so, because I am.

John 13:14
So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.

Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my own flesh and blood,

I know GOD has not forgotten ISREAL His first Born
and when the times of the Gentiles comes to its end
The Jews will open their eyes and look up on the one they pierced
and morn for HIM like a Only SON!

many Jews , Muslims , are giving their lives to Jesus
only the holy spirit can convict the heart , open the blind eyes
and lean them to know

Whom the SON SETS FREE IS FREE INDEED !


As a Gentile i call HIM JESUS CHRIST ! Even Peter Called Him Lord . The Christ !
Jesus asked peter " who do you say i am "
He answered " YOU ARE THE CHRIST !
My Question to you just as Jesus said " WHO DO YOU SAY I AM ?"

You know that when you were pagans, you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 John 4:2
By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,


The old letter of the Law was for Israel not the Gentiles
and there were Rules over 613 to follow and if they could not follow them
there was sacrifice of animals , for anonement

Now we are in a new dispensation of GRACE
Jesus was the Sacrifical Lamb of GOD ! and IS Forever our Savior
Only Jesus coud save us from the law of death !
to give us LIFE by HIS GRACE

Those who tell you he was a angel or metatron
Ark angel are decieved this is the talmud of babylon ! mystism is the occult !
God warned even Saul ( you shall not speak to familiar spirits !
and saul disobayed GOD and fell on his own sword

Those who Trusted in GOD Went by Faith Read Hebrews !

Jesus came as God wrapped in Sinless flesh
as a BABY !
fully God not a angel

what the law could not do Save is from Hell and Seperation
from God
Jesus was the Bridge to show us We are Sinners and only by Repentance , and
Calling upon the name of the Lord are we SAVED !

for many years i was under the LAW thinking i had to doo good to get to heaven
This is not about our works , its about HIS WORK on the Cross

Jesus said " many will say in that day " Lord did i not do wonderful works , cast our demons , and did all these wonderful things in your name , then Jesus will say "Depart from me you are a worker of iniquity i never knew you "

Joshua 24:15 - And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord .

God bless Deborah ,