Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matthew 28:19
#31
I read the one by Anton LaVey years ago and I have also watched fiction movies. I'm interested in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew because its a work that has parts that are equivalent to works that predate our earliest manuscripts. I want it to study it even IF its a spurious work - to make a fraud of a document - one must have the document to make a fraud of. Therefore, some truth may be able to bleed through it IF its such a work. I'm sure even scholars can see the value in that because either way its a historical document or rare content.

Paul
Reply
#32
Hehe,

Don't mind Dave, he get's like that when someone doesn't buy the car he is selling lol.

Anyways, there are some major problems with the Shem Tov text, as you will find, I have the book also. It is good to compare though.
Reply
#33
I didn't know the Munster text wasn't translated yet. That would be interesting. Is there a source of it anywhere in Hebrew that is complete? I did find the DuTillet translated:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.torahwellsprings.org/Download/Peshito-DuTillet%20(<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.TorahWellsprings.org">http://www.TorahWellsprings.org</a><!-- w -->">http://www.torahwellsprings.org/Downloa ... prings.org</a><!-- m -->).pdf

Paul
Reply
#34
Paul,

Not that I know of in english. I know that Trimm used the text in his version but I never seen an english version that you could buy separately. I think a guy name Herbst translated it but in german or something quite a few years back.

I would like to see the two compared with each other. I don't have much regard for the Shem Tov, since it has some corruptness in it, but the Munster text and the DuTillet have similarities with the greek and latin.
Reply
#35
Hi Paul,

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

You wrote:
Quote:I read the one by Anton LaVey years ago ...

Why am I not surprised ?

Did you find any interesting readings there ?

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#36
Gbausc, I'm not trying to debate you. You don't wont me to read other books on this subject and don't want me to believe that Matthew 28:19 is different then what is posted here. I find that disturbing but the Holy Spirit is not about banter and debate or conflict. I am on a quest to find the Truth. That is why I'm in this forum. As a Christian I don't recommend anyone read Satanic books. I don't practice disliking people. So don't be offended as I think your an intelligent person but I cannot accept all your views. I hope you can understand my position and hopefully we can continue in this forum in the respect expected by the rules of the forum.

Paul
Reply
#37
His style is typical Paul.

Dave and others have run people off here who were a threat at times to their text. I seen a scholar run off here because he thought like you, desiring to validate what was the truth.

The section that you found validates the tampering that happened not just in the greek, but carried over into the syriac. The tampering has to be a theological one for the church present at the time, hence the Trinity insertion. On the one hand, you have a section that doesn't belong, such as matthew, and on the other in 1 John, you have a section that belongs of which is missing in the peshitta. If one does some historical searching on the Johannine comma, it also has a little church father support, but more Waldnesian support in about 4 different translations that stem from a rough old latin language from about 125 AD, that goes way beyond the peshitta and others. All documented by experts.



The syriac text has very little in the way of proof outside of it anyways. Unlike the greek, the eastern syriac has small amounts of historical proof in the way of church fathers that quoted mega-amounts of scripture so that one could compare. They have a few, but most are not this "eastern" person (maybe one that is quoted on here Araaphat (sp)), most are the western type, and they disregard them quickly on here.

One of the tricks I seen out of the camp here is to require only eastern materials, wether it be texts or quotes, it has to be eastern for them. In their eyes, this limits what may be utilized against them, although that is not the consenses of the scholarly community, of which they hate.

Comparisons are a good thing. One of the things that Trimm used to do on various forums was post sections of text in comparisons, so that the lay person could see what was missing and what was transferred correctly. Here is one:

Quote:Mt. 10:42

Codex D: his reward will not be lost
Old Syriac: his reward shall not be lost
Alexandrian & Byzantine: he shall in no way lose his reward
Peshitta: his reward is not lost

This way one could see the progression in comparison. Here is another with notes:

Quote:Mt. 18:2
DuTillet Hebrew Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)

Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew: ???And he called one boy??????(a certain boy)

Old Syriac Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)

In the Hebrew and in the Old Syriac Aramaic (but not the Peshitta) we have a common Semitic idiom by which a ???certain??? thing is modified with the word ???one???. In this case Yeshua calls ???one boy??? in the Hebrew and Aramaic, i.e. ???a certain boy???. Codex D has: ???And Iesus called the one boy?????? This Western Greek reading preserves the Semitic idiom ???one boy??? which has no place in the Greek language.

However the traditional Greek has been revised into smoother Greek to read: ???And he called a boy??????

And the Peshitta was revised to agree with the traditional Greek text to read: ???And Yeshua called a boy??????

It doesn't take much to see the differences involved at times, as long as one is honest enough to put them out there, neither is it a requirement to know aramaic to see these things.
Reply
#38
Shlama Paul,

I never said "Don't compare other books".
What I did show, I think , is that Shem Tob is a heavily biased and edited manuscript that takes out all references to Jesus as The Messiah and apparently makes John The Baptist out to be greater than Jesus.
Such a witness is completely untrustworthy.Any differences from the traditional would be immediately suspect as due to deliberate tampering. Such mss. can be produced by the scores, but are not worth the ink they were written with.

And if you think The Holy Spirit is not about debate or conflict, you are missing the point entirely. We happen to be discussing The Holy Spirit, of Whom Jesus said, "Whoever shall blaspheme The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." That is found in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

One cannot blaspheme a thing, only a person. "Blaspheme" means "insult". Our Lord made a distinction between blasphemy against Himself and God and that which is against The Holy Spirit. Have you not read this ?

How can you be serious about God and be so presumptious as to say The Holy Spirit is not a Living and Divine Being ? Have you studied all the scriptures on the subject ?

It seems to me you take extreme risks with your soul and with The Person of God.

If you seek truth as you say, you should be more careful and inquiring in this matter. So many people are spiritually blinded and misled by the enemy of souls.

I cannot believe this is a trivial matter to God our Father or to God The Son. And certainly, The Holy Spirit has very strong feelings about what people believe concerning Him.

"Contend earnestly for the faith, once delivered to the saints." Jude 1:3
There is a command to contend, inspired by The Holy Spirit.
I will contend in His cause and for the sake of a soul.

May God richly bless you, brother Paul.

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#39
Gbausc,

I appreciate your concern for me. But I believe the Holy Spirit is divine nature of the Father. Blasphemy in my belief therefore is to oppose the actual Holy Spirit (Spirit of the Father) which is the Almighty's Spirit. So its much more of an offense in my belief than it would be in one that believes in the Trinity for example where the Holy Spirit is not the Greatest of the Godhead.

Paul
Reply
#40
Quote:How can you be serious about God and be so presumptious as to say The Holy Spirit is not a Living and Divine Being ? Have you studied all the scriptures on the subject ?


I think Dave would like to derail the topic, it hits too close to home.
Reply
#41
Paul, I'm not sure why Dave is so adamant about discussing The Holy Spirit with you, I didn't see you imply something bad, or even outright insult.

On the other hand, I see Dave calling me names, implying that discerning the truth of the scriptures by The Holy Spirit is in the same league as divination, etc.
Reply
#42
By the way Paul;

Quote:The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all the nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent.


Found it here, seems to be some more interesting stuff on your topic.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm">http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#43
Check out that site I posted Paul, some really sound investigation into the ending of Matthew on there:

Quote:Considering the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now the early writings, you should by now have come to conclusion that in the early centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the modern Triune wording. Regardless of the opinions or positions taken by our commentators, we must at the very least admit that fact.

In legal practice where copies of an original lost document vary, the "Internal Evidence" is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the undisputed text with text in question, in order to determine which of the variant wordings is more likely to be the original. With both variants in mind, we will now turn to the scriptures themselves for our internal evidence.

Internal Evidence

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. "(1 Thessalonians 5:21) In this verse, the Greek word translated as "prove" is dokimazo, and it means, "to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), to recognize as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy. "

In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we will submit both renderings to ten "tests". In doing so, we will be able to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious.

1. The Test of Context

When examining the context, we find that today's Trinitarian wording lacks logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. If however, we read as follows, the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is comprehensible:

All power is given unto me. .. go therefore. .. make disciples in my name, teaching them. .. whatsoever I have commanded. .. I am with you. .. (Matthew 28:18-20)
Reply
#44
Quote:2. The Test of Frequency

Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in the scripture? Not once.

Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matt. 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23.
Reply
#45
Quote:3. The Test of Doctrine

Is any doctrine or concept of scripture based on an understanding of a threefold name, or of baptism in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in scripture based on the fact of baptism in the name of Jesus? Yes! This is clarified in 1 Corinthians 1:13:"Is Christ divided[/i[i]]? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that believers should to be baptized in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our stead, He being later raised to incorruptibility by the Spirit of God. But it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was crucified, and therefore in His name believers must be baptized in water.

According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV:

There is but one way for a believer of 'the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ' to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose. " "As for it's significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ. It is the means of the believer's identification with the Lord's death. - God's Way, pg. 190. The Father did not die, nor the Holy Spirit. As the scripture says, "buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism," not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5)

R. Roberts used this explanation in "The Nature of Baptism", page 13):

According to trine immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the 'new and living way. ' And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that 'there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. '(Acts 4:12).

This, of course, is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or in any other name that replaces Christ from His position as the sacrificial Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation?

Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19 confirming the use of the phrase, "in my name."
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)