Matthew 28:19

[gbausc]

Huh ?

Have a nice life , Dave

[Dave]

Heh, that's right, run and hide Dave.

[Dave]

Paul (trettep),

I think you made an excellant point here. Unfortunately, on here it is a primacy thing with the language, as also on some greek sites, so any openess to questions like that are squelched or derailed quickly. Besides, Dave and I have been at odds for a period now since his Christianity is at one level and mine is at another.

Anyways, take a look at the link I posted, tons of information on the subject you presented.

[trettep]

Yes Dave, I did look over the link you posted. It would be a very bad thing in the work of Peshitta translators to let any kind of bias influence the outcome of their work. I'm not saying that is the case with the work here as I don't know enough about the work to make that decision. But regarding this verse I tend to put more weight in what earlier historians directly quoted from as it predates those manuscripts that we currently have. So what hurts a translator in my opinion is if they put a spin on their work such that it favors a position of a particular church or sect because the church historians have already recorded a great quantity of work they will predate our earlliest manuscripts and will relentlessly be used against such translators to discredit their work. I believe that soon a great wealth of information will pour out shedding more light on the Truth.

Paul

[Dave]

I agree on all points!

The bias can also be based on a belief besides the language. I've seen a few people state that they must adhere to a particular text type or they felt their Christianity was nothing. That's a fragile way to follow The Lord.

Those who spend time in the various manuscripts available will find treasures in many places, as long as they are careful not to rush in hastily and base their whole belief system on one manuscript, *cough Trimm cough*.

The originals were copied into several languages, so one can find truth in many areas.

There has been an opening of truth over the last 10 years already. Great things are out there to help Christians. The greatest thing is exposure, having those works available to His people instead of just scholars, and that is happening right now.

[gbausc]

I'm not hiding, Dave. Paul Younan, our web host ,warned me & everyone about you with the following post:

Rev. Bauscher,

Don't pay any undue attention to Dave. The idiot really believes that by throwing around the word "dialect" he might impress us into thinking that he actually knows what the word means.

For someone to have come here and lectured about how the Holy Spirit is a "broad", to borrow a word from a specific dialect of American English, and then to repeatedly announce his premature departure....only to come back and make himself look foolish again with his blatant racism (I don't care who your first wife was, Dave) - convinces me once and for all that he truly is, in all senses of the word, an Internet Troll. (for a definition of an Internet Troll, see the following: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll</a><!-- m --> ).

The best way to deal with Internet Trolls is to ignore them, thus depriving them of the one thing they desire the most - drawing attention to themselves in order to fulfill some unmet childhood need.

I am following his advice. I agree with his assessment of you. You are an idiot. I have better things to do than to argue with an idiot.

Rev. Dave Bauscher

[Dave]

Poor Dave.

He's invested ungodly amounts of time towards this code theory/peshitta primacy hypothesis of his only to have it scoffed at by Christians and made out to be nothing. Everything in this code theory of his hinges completely on the new testament book arrangement, take one book out of order and all the codes disapear, imagine that?!

It's not real hard for anyone to figure out that the Acts of The Apostles follows the gospel that Luke wrote first,...it's a no brainer to arrange the new testament chronologically like that, as it should have been.

I shouldn't tell people about such things like that, Dave would look like a fool with all that peshitta primacy and code theory stuff he's already wrote and posted on the web, heh.

In reality, I think Dave has dug quite the hole for himself in all of those theories. You attempt to show him a questionable area in this syriac text and he'll find a way to justify it, no matter what. That is what he just did with the trinity ending of matthew. He did not argue the fact of what you said Paul, he just wanted to derail the topic since it hits home too hard.

If he was to question the syriac text, then all he has wrote about in his personal articles would be at stake. Sad position to be in for anyone.

By the way, one of the texts of the old syriac gospels happened to arrange the books correctly,... Matthew, Mark, John, Luke,...and Luke's second account would have followed in that arrangement. Someone was thinking. Even if it was arranged with John following Lukes acts, it would be more correct than the way that it currently is.

Really, I'm not sure why Dave jumped in the post anyways other than to stick up for his text somehow.

[trettep]

I'm curious if there is any Aramaic sources of this verse in existence that translate it without the trinity feel that are early writings?

Paul

[gbausc]

arbw aba Msb Nwna wdmeaw amme Nwhlk wdmlt lykh wlz

[Dave]

Paul,

You may want to do some reading (if you haven't yet already) on some of the dates applied to the texts of the peshitta/o, it doesn't have much support anytime earlier than around the 5th century (and I think I'm being nice about that date really).

A whole lot of claims by people here and there, supposed writings saying this and that on different websites, but when it is actually dated by experts, it seems to hang around that timeframe or later, as does the text.

In comparison, it has some of the same mistakes that a majority of the greek texts have, such as the missing name in matthew, the end section you mentioned of matthew, the questionable ending of mark, besides missing the last 5 writings that make up the greek text and others.

But if you ask these guys here and on a few other forums, they make up some really weird explanations/excuses/claims for these things. It is hard to date it early or claim originality with those mistakes staring you in the face. It usually doesn't fool too many of the scholars either.

It's funny to watch some of the folks go at though when they are questioned about some of these things, especially the self-proclaimed scholar guys on some of the yahoo forums, man they get serious about what they think Jesus's name supposedly was in aramaic, and other subjects, heh, it is a riot to read at times.

What's funny, is that you have greek Papryus that is now starting to date around 100 AD and earlier, which beats the 5th century by a long mile.

[trettep]

The Aramaic primacy details are pretty convincing to me over the Greek. But like I said before I think the Peshitta is at the least tampered with. It may contain better meaning by its own language than the Greek manuscripts but it still seems to contain the tampering. I have ordered and await the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (George Howard) to look into it. I am at a great disadvantage to look over these texts when I know so little about Aramaic and Hebrew. But I know about the message fairly well and can still spot some things that just can't be so in some of the translations, with this subject verse being one of them. I wish to learn more about Aramaic but many of the sites that teach it seem to confuse me. As there is different letters of Aramaic so which letters (script) do I learn. It seems Estrangla seems to be the one to learn. My reason for learning Aramaic is really only for discernment of the earliest texts so I would like to learn whichever Aramaic would have been spoken of and written in the period and location of Jesus and by Him and His Apostles.

Paul

[gbausc]

Shlama Paul,

The first century Aramaic script would have been the square Hebrew characters. Estrangela came next around AD 100 through 11th century mss. in The Peshitta and later.

It is silly to "divine" the correct readings according to doctrinal bias. Everyone would have his own individual NT on that eclectic basis. Why study Hebrew,Aramaic and Greek is all we need is to "put your hands on the radio" and discern what "the spirit says" about the correct reading ?

Shem Tob's Matthew is a corrupted text, unless you agree with its elimination of Yeshua as The Messiah !

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew

Preaching to the Gentiles is not mentioned in Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, and is even called the work of the "anti-Christ" in Matt 24:14-15:

"And this gospel will be preached in all the earth for a witness concerning me to all the nations and then the end will come. This is the Anti-Christ and this is the abomination which desolates which was spoken of by Daniel as standing in the holy place. Let the one who reads understand."

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew never identifies Yeshua (Jesus) as the Christ:
1:1 "these are the generations of Jesus???";
1:18 "The birth of Jesus was in this way . . ." etc.


John the Baptizer plays an exalted role:

Matt 11:11 "Truly, I say to you, among all those born of women men has risen greater than John the Baptizer."

James D. Tabor writes:

The phrase "yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" is missing. In the Luke parallel (7:28), MSS. 5, 475* and 1080* also omit the qualification. The same reading is inferred in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings, Rec 1.60.1-3, where one of the disciples of John argues that his teacher is greater than Jesus, Moses, and all men and thus the Christ. Also, in Rec 1.63.1 Peter taught the disciples of John not to allow John to be a stumbling-block to them. Matt 11:13 "For all the prophets and the law spoke concerning [al] John" in contrast to the Greek: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Matt 17:11 "Indeed Elijah will come and will save all the world" in contrast to the Greek: "Elijah does come, and he is to restore all things." Matt 21:32 "Because John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him. But violent men and harlots believed him and you saw it and did not turn in repentance. Also afterward you did not repent to believe him. To the one who has ears to hear let him hear in disgrace." These words are directed to his disciples (v. 28), not to the chief priests and elders as in the Synoptic Greek tradition. The kind of polemic found in the Gospel of John appears to be directed toward an evaluation of John the Baptizer such as that found in ST Matthew. Similar reflective evidence is found in Luke-Acts and the Pseudo-Clementines (noted above).

John 1:7-8-He is a witness to the light, but is not the light 1:15, 30-He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me 1:20-I am not the Christ; nor Elijah 1:26-27-Not worthy to untie his sandals 3:30-He must increase but I must decrease 10:41-John did not sign; Jesus did many (20:30) Indeed Bultman argued that the Prologue was a hymn of the Baptist community, now recast to refer to Jesus (Gospel of John: A Commentary, 17-18). Luke-Acts 3:20-22 John is in prison-then only is baptism of Jesus mentioned! Drops Marks moving account of the death of John (Mark 6/Luke 9) Acts 18:25-Apollos knows only baptism of John Acts 19:1-7-Twelve from Ephesus that only know of John's baptism

Apparently the editor of Shem Tob thought John was greater than Yeshua !
Such a manuscript is fit only for the trash can, in my view.
But if that kind of Christianity appeals to you, knock yourself out !

Yours for the truth,

Dave

[gbausc]

Secondly, he (Mr. Wierwille) notes that Eusebius "cited Matthew 28:19 eighteen times without once using the" (i.e., the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") (p. 20). Instead Eusebius used the words, ".. . in my name." To Mr. Wierwille this is evidence that the manuscripts Eusebius used "could not have used the trinitarian words" (p. 20). However, Mr. Wierwille's logic is destroyed if Eusebius can be quoted even once as having used the "trinitarian words." In a letter to the people of his diocese, Eusebius writes:

. . . as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, "Go-teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."[5]

Thus Mr. Wierwille's attempt to find support from Eusebius has failed and his logic shown to be biased. Mr. Wierwille then raises the valid question concerning the different baptismal formulas used in Scripture, i.e., Matthew 28:19 states ". . . in thename of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," whereas in the book of Acts the phrases "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the "Lord" are used. To this A. T. Robertson, probably the greatest Greek scholar of our century and listed in Mr. Wierwille's own bibliography, says,

The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.[6 ]

and,

This use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis enoma prophetou (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the trinity does not occur in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show it was not used. The name of Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit . . . "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord."[7]

Baptizing "in the Name" , according to A.T Robertson, means "in the authority". It does not mean the words must be recited "In the Name of the Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit."

Besides, as I have written before, The Name "Christ" or "Messiah" (Anointed) involves The Father, Son and Spirit, as Robertson also points out. (The Anointer is The Father; The Anointed is The Son; The Anointing is The Holy Spirit). Scripture, (not man made theology) makes this plain. See former posts.

Dave

[trettep]

Its ok Dave. I understand it all differently than you. I already have the book ordered and see nothing wrong with comparing it.

Paul

[gbausc]

Hey, like I said, knock yourself out !

You might check out The Satanic Bible as well. I'm sure that has the "correct readings" on the Trinity also.

Dave