Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some questions
#31
You said:

Quote:no Greek manuscript or ancient version has the Eastern Peshitta reading: "which the Messiah purchased with his own blood".

We know that The Messiah of God did indeed do that....

This is how the Eastern Peshitta Text of the Kahbouris Manuscript reads:

Literal Translation: "Therefore take care of your soul and the entire flock, which have been established by the Spirit of Holiness, as Overseers, to feed the Assembly of Messiah, obtained by his blood."

And here is how some others who translated the Eastern Text render this verse.

Etheridge: Acts 20:28 - "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of the Meshiha which he hath purchased with his blood."

Lamsa: Acts 20:28 - "Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood."

Roth: Acts 20:28 - "Take great care of yourselves, and of all the flock over which the Ruach haKodesh has established you as overseers for, that you feed the assembly of Mashiyach, which he acquired by his own blood."

H.T. Anderson - Sinaiticus Manuscript Translation "Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, that you act as shepherds to the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood."

Irenaeus who wrote Against Heresies around 180-185 A.D. and quotes the earliest known version of this verse, other than the Eastern Peshitta reading has this:

"Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." (Against Heresies: Book III:14)

Both versions, Northern and Southern, of the Ancient Coptic Scriptures, both witness to the "Church of the Lord" reading.

And look at this:

From the Majority Greek Text, as translated by Paul W. Esposito of Majority Text.com

"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you as overseers, to shepherd the church of the Lord, and of God, which He purchased with His own blood."

And I noticed this when reading the Apostolic Constitutions: Book II. Of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church - Dated to about 390 A.D.

"Let the bishop pray for the people, and say: ?Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance, which Thou hast obtained with the precious blood of Thy Christ, and hast called a royal priesthood, and an holy nation.? "

"Do you therefore, who attend to the laws of God, esteem those laws more honourable than the necessities of this life, and pay a greater respect to them, and run together to the Church of the Lord, ?which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature.? "

..
Reply
#32
Hi Chuck,


You have reinforced my statement by not quoting one Greek manuscript or ancient version with the reading: "the church of the Messiah, which he purchased with his blood." for Acts 20:28.
Why in the world would you be quoting Andrew Roth, Etheridge or Lamsa to prove your case?

I am not denying the fact that the Messiah died or shed his blood; I am simply stating a fact about the reading of Acts 20:28. Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?
And why do most Peshitta mss. contain the reading,"the church of God, which he purchased with his blood", with which most Greek mss. agree, including B & Aleph (4th century)? Did the Peshitta scribes get it from the Greek? Highly unlikely, but if they did,then, where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?

Blessings,

Dave
Reply
#33
Just a correction about Sinaiticus: Sinaiticus reads, "ekklhsian tou Theou"- "church of God"...(4th century).

Dave
Reply
#34
:

That's strange Dave...both Tischendorf's and the online Sinaticus Manuscript translation shows "Chuch of the Lord" for Acts 20:28. Which is where i got the reading from. I didn't think to look at the text itself....But, I just did...and if you look very closely at the Manuscript itself...in that section, and right under this verse and around it...there is a ghost text, which has been errased and written over...perhaps, Tishendorf and the site host of the Sinaiticus Manuscript Online knows something more than we do about this?...since they both translate it to read "Church of the Lord"...They have/had the Manuscript in front of them...when translating it. Also the Translation of H.T. Anderson in the 1800s also translated it "the Church of the Lord". So, what gives? Three witnesses who translated the actual manuscript, all went with "Church of the Lord."

Also, these 3 verses as well, which are not in the Eastern Peshitta, are not found in the Sinaticus: 8:37; 15:34; 28:29 if what read is correct.

You said:

Quote:You have reinforced my statement by not quoting one Greek manuscript or ancient version with the reading: "the church of the Messiah, which he purchased with his blood." for Acts 20:28.

Why in the world would you be quoting Andrew Roth, Etheridge or Lamsa to prove your case?

I am not denying the fact that the Messiah died or shed his blood; I am simply stating a fact about the reading of Acts 20:28. Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?
And why do most Peshitta mss. contain the reading,"the church of God, which he purchased with his blood", with which most Greek mss. agree, including B & Aleph (4th century)? Did the Peshitta scribes get it from the Greek? Highly unlikely, but if they did,then, where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?

I show their translations because they go with The Eastern Peshitta Text for that verse. Why should we make the Eastern Peshitta conform to the Greek or Latin texts, which are all later in origin than it is...and judge the Aramaic Text, against their various readings of the same verse?

Which Eastern Aramaic Text, shows "Church of God" or "Chuch of the Lord"? Are there any?

We can see from the Greek, Latin, and the qoutes of the Church Father's...that this verse has a number of variant readings... "Church of God", Church of the Lord" "Chuch of God and the Lord"...so, which is the right one?

I say, that "Church of Christ" is the right one....as preserved in the Eastern Peshitta. And this is in agreement with the rest of the New Testament, as seen in these verses, which attest to what is found in Acts 20:28 in the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta.

Acts 20:28 ?Take care therefore, of your souls, and the entire flock, who The Spirit of Holiness has established you as overseers, to shepherd The Church of M?shikah, that was acquired by His blood.?

Ephesians 1:7-8 ?In whom, we have redemption by His blood and remission of sins, according to the wealth of His goodness to those who abound in all wisdom and understanding.

1 Peter 1:18-19 ?While you know that you were not by silver, which gets old, and not with gold, saved from empty deeds, who receive from the Father, but by precious blood of The Lamb, without blemish or impurity, by M?shikah.?

Hebrews 9:14 ?Therefore, how abundantly the blood of M'shikah, by The Eternal Spirit, offered His Soul with no blemish to Alaha, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living Alaha?

1 John 1:7 ?But if we walk in The Light as He is in The Light, we have communion with each other, and the blood of Y?shua, His Son, purges us from all of our sins.?

Where are the other verses in the New Testament... that teaches it was the "blood of God" that purges, cleanses, redeems, and remits our sins? As these all have The M'shikah, The Lamb, Y'shua.

Now...something fishy is going on with this "Blood of God" and "Blood of Christ"...as is seen by the shorter and longer versions of the later to the Ephesians said to be from Bishop Ignatius of Antioch.

Shorter Greek version: "Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God,you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you."

Longer Greek Version: "Being the followers of the love of God towards man, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of Christ, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you."

Shorter Syriac Version: "..and ye are imitators of God, and are fervent in the blood of God, and have speedily completed a work congenial to you;"

This is the 1st and only time we see that "The Blood of God" is mentioned from an early 2nd Century source, in any writting of the Church Father's...and there is the variant again...and of all the Church Father's of the early 2nd Century, this is only given this way in this passage, in the Ephesian letter said to be from Ignatius...and there is the variant...so which one is the true reading?

And in all the other places that the redeeming Blood is mentioned by the Chruch Father's of the early 2nd Century...14 times...it is "The Blood of Christ", which they speak of. I could give all the qoutes...if you want to see them.

In the early 3rd Century...Tertulian also mentions "The Blood of God" once in his letter to his wife. "So far as I know, ?we are not our own, but bought with a price;? and what kind of price? The blood of God."

In all the writtings, the Chruch father's from the eary 2nd to the 5th Century...only these two places have a referance to "the blood of God"...yet the term "the blood of Christ" is refered to many, many times in the same writtings. I just checked.

I personally do not care which proves to be the correct version, as its true either way...as I believe and teach that The Messiah is GOD/The Word...incarnate in Y'shua of Nazareth. The issue for me is...is the Eastern Peshitta reading in Acts 20:28 that Original form or not...on a textual basis...and if not why not?

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#35
:

Quote:Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?

Quote:?where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?

Good question Dave. I have one too...

Where did the writer of the Apostolic Constitutions (circa 390 A.D.) get this reading from in the quote below? If there were NO Greek Manuscripts which had the Eastern Peshitta Text?s reading in them at Acts 20:28, where in the world did this Greek writer get it?

??run together to the Church of the Lord, ?which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature.? Apostolic Constitutions: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church.

And again in the same section?

?Let the bishop pray for the people, and say: ?Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance, which Thou hast obtained with the precious blood of Thy Christ,?? Apostolic Constitutions: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church.


..
Reply
#36
Hi ThirdWoe,

I know that Dave holds a trinitarian position. He keeps no evil scheme and he is a searcher for truth and spirit like most of us.
I also wonder if we should maintain positions like the ancient churchfathers did, which have caused schisms. The internet gives us currently a great opportunity to unite.

The fact that we have freely available tools, which even non-aramaic readers can utilize to read the most ancient scriptures, should give us all reason to improve the Bible reading experience and people can decide for themselves.

Sorry if I sound like a preacher <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->
Reply
#37
Hi Chuck,

I have the photo facsimile of Sinaiticus, and the word in question is ten lines from the bottom on the left most column, in about the middle of the line.
The copy is very clear and easy to read. The line reads:CIANTOUQYHN (I have used a Q for a Theta.)
The underlined letters are actually over-lined in the manuscript, and are the common uncial abbreviation for QEOU - "GOD".

To verify this, I checked three Greek NT's I have at Acts 20:28: 1.)Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum (1971 UBS), 2.)The Greek New Testament (UBS ed. by Aland,Black,Martini,Metzger,Wikgren, 3.)The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, ed. by Hodges and Farstad (1982). These three Greek NT editions all agree in presenting the Sinaiticus reading at Acts 20:28 as "the church of God..."
Tischendorf's 2nd edition does have "church of the Lord" in the main text, and "the church of God" in the footnote as a variant reading, but as I do not read Latin well, I cannot make out his introduction which sets out his plan for his base text and the variant readings. A look at Siniaticus itself is all that is needed, however, to settle the matter. It reads,"the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood."

But you still have not answered my question:
Quote:Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?
And
Quote:?where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?

You wrote:
Quote:Why should we make the Eastern Peshitta conform to the Greek or Latin texts, which are all later in in origin than it is...and judge the Aramaic Text, against their various translations of the same verse?

Which Eastern Aramaic Text, shows "Church of God" or "Chuch of the Lord"? Are there any?

You sweep away the majority of Peshitta manuscripts as irrelevant because they are not Eastern. That is a gross error, my friend. You are relying on a minority of Peshitta mss. to ascertain the true reading. Most of the old Peshitta mss. are Western, yet there is 99.5% agreement or better, between the Eastern and Western texts in most books, as far as I have compared them, and I have compared them overall for the NT, using the Khabouris as the Eastern representative.

If you were a member of the Church of The East, it is understandable that church doctrine or bias toward Eastern readings would determine your position, but that cannot be credibly presented as an objective position based on evidence.

You admit at the end of your last post that you can accept both readings as sound doctrine. I am glad to hear it. I Cor. 11:27 & 29 refers to "the blood of Maryah" and "the body of Maryah", and both Eastern and Western texts agree on the readings. This is the equivalent of "the blood and body of YHWH", so I fail to see the reason for contending over "dmah d' Alaha" -"blood of God". "The blood of YHWH" is far more demanding of our faith than "blood of Alaha", since "YHWH" is unequivocally the Name of The One Eternal Deity, whereas "Alaha" is not so, and is a title, not a name. (I do believe, however, that Acts 20:28 refers to the Eternal Deity of Yeshua).
The Nestorian position essentially is a refusal to acknowledge that God can suffer, bleed, or die, while yet holding that Yeshua is Eternal Deity. Much scripture that is uncontested in its readings attests that The Son of God died: "God was reconciled with us in the death of His Son." (Romans 5:10)
"And in these last days he has spoken with us by his Son, whom he ordained The Heir of all things, and by him he made the universe.For he is The Brilliance of his glory, The Image of his Being, and upholds all things by the power of his word; and he in his Essential Being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."Hebrews 1:3

Is there any doubt that Paul was saying that The Son of God who created the universe and upholds all things by His word purged our sins in his Essential Being (Qnoma), which means that His essential Being is Eternal Deity, which He offered for us as atonement for the sins of the world. Surely the Spirit was not speaking of Messiah's humanity in these verses. It was not His humanity that created the universe or maintains all creation by His mighty word.

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator (literally-"the One Who made it").
That is speaking of the Testator of the New Covenant.
?Behold, the days are coming, says THE LORD JEHOVAH, and I will perfect a New Covenant for the family of the house of Israel and for the family of the house of Judah.? -Hebrews 8:8
Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: -Jer. 31:31
Thus, the NT teaching is:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament (the New Covenant) is, there must also of necessity be the death of YHWH (literally-"the One Who made it").

13. And he has saved us from the power of darkness and brought us into The Kingdom of his Beloved Son; 14. He in whom we have salvation and the
forgiveness of sins; 15. He who is the image of The Unseen God and is The Firstborn of all creation. 16. By him was everything created which is in Heaven
and in The Earth: everything that is seen and everything that is unseen, whether Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Rulers; everything has been created by
his hand and in him. 17. And he is The One who is before all, and all things exist by him. 18. And he is The Head of the body which is the church, for he is The
Head and The Firstborn from among the dead , that he would be Preeminent in everything, 19. For in him All Fullness is pleased to dwell
, 20. And to reconcile all things by him to Itself, and by him It made peace by the blood of his crucifixion, whether of things that are in Earth or that are in Heaven.

"Christ died for our sins". You and I agree that Christ is God, therefore we agree that Christ, Who is God, died for our sins. That is an eminently scriptural statement. Christ's death was not "half assed", so to speak. His death was complete. Isaiah 53 says "He made his soul an offering for sin"; "He poured out his soul unto death"; "He shall see the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied." He offered his body and blood for an offering also. He also offered up His Spirit unto death- which is the most essential aspect of His Being and Person:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? Psalms 22:1
But from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And toward the ninth hour Yeshua cried with a loud voice and he said, ?Oh God, oh God! Why have you forsaken me?? Mat. 27:45,46
For he who had not known sin made himself to become sin in your place, that we would become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. 5:21

Physical death is separation of the spirit from the body.
Spiritual death is separation of the spirit from God. Yeshua had to experience this also, as it is the wages of sin, which He paid. I do not believe His Father abandoned Him, but that our Lord's Spirit underwent a transformation which Paul says was being "made sin in our place". That was His death and separation from His Father, not knowing His own soul and righteousness as The Son of God, but considering Himself " - a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.- Psalms 22:6
Our Lord no longer knew His own soul and nature as The Divine Son of God, or His Father as His Father, but as "my God". He had never spoken in prayer and addressed His Father as "my God", and certainly never thought His Father had abandoned Him, or that He would ever be able to do so.
"My Father and I, we are One."
Joh 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Blessings and Peace,

Dave
Reply
#38
:

Quote:The Nestorian position essentially is a refusal to acknowledge that God can suffer, bleed, or die, while yet holding that Yeshua is Eternal Deity.

Dave...Y'shua was not talking to himself on the Cross...He was talking to His Father...and His God, as The Scriptures in any language teaches. It was into the Hands of GOD, His Father, whom He comended His Spirit unto before He died on the Cross. Not to Himself...but to His Father. His Father departed from Him, which is what "forsook" means...not that The Father rejected His Son, but He departed from Him, before the sin of mankind was placed upon The Messiah...and then HE died on the Cross. His Father did not die on the Cross...Th Father's Son died and shed His blood. This is Biblical Doctrine 101 Dave.

To say that The Father & The Holy Spirit died on the Cross...is an idea that is not found in Scripture. Period. GOD is Spirit...and Spirit is unable to die on a Cross, killed by the hands of men.

It was The Messiah of GOD, the Perfect Sinless Human Being, which GOD's Word/Miltha tabernacled in, and was united with, which suffered, shed His Blood, died, was buried, whos Soul decended into Sheol, and rose from among the dead on the 3rd day, ascended Body, Soul, and Spirit into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of His Father, awaiting the command of His Father as to what day and hour to Return, Body, Soul, and Spirit.

I understand the disctiction of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit...because it is taught very clearly in The Scriptures. I do not confuse them, nor their relationship with each other.

I believe that the Eastern Peshitta, IS the Original form of The Holy Scriptures, as given to us by the hands of the Apostles. The Western readings which are aligned with the Greek against the Eastern Peshitta, we made to conform to it by the Monophysites and other groups in the west, who held to false doctrines concerning constitution of Christ, such as Cryil of Alexandria, who split the Church in two in 431 over the Two Natures issue.

I beleive that Bishop Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia before him held the correct doctrine of the two natures in The Messiah, and His relationship with The Father.

You are free to believe as you like Dave...as anyone else may.

I don't judge the Eastern Peshitta by the Greek or Latin...It stands as an independant witness, which I believe to be the Original New Testament, as given to The Church of the East, by the hands of the Apostles and is unchanged from that time.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#39
:

Distazo, you said:

Quote:I also wonder if we should maintain positions like the ancient churchfathers did, which have caused schisms.

We are to maintain sound doctrine, as taught in Scripture, which is most purely represented by the Eastern Peshitta Text. If the Ancient Church Father's taught soundly, then we are to teach the same soundness of doctrine. The schisms come from those who do not hold to sound doctrine, and who chose rather, to interpret Scripture in their own way, which seems right to them, but is not witnessed to by Holy Scripture, or The Holy Spirit.

Schismatics are those who come against what is always taught in the Pure Scripture, and which was always taught by the Church Father's who taught from them. It is when Pure Scripture is taken and twisted to mean what it does not mean, that heresies come in. And they have in great measure, since the time of Simon Magus.

..
Reply
#40
:

Again:

Where did the writer of the Apostolic Constitutions (circa 390 A.D.) get this reading from in the quote below? If there were NO Greek Manuscripts which had the Eastern Peshitta Text?s reading in them at Acts 20:28... where in the world did this Greek writer get it then?

I say that it was in the Greek Text. And these Apostolic Constitutions, though I have not read through them all...were considred to be authoritative and correct. I have never heard them judged to be of a heretic's group. But I have not gone over all that pertain to them.

It reads...

??run together to the Church of the Lord, ?which He has purchased with the blood of Christ, the beloved, the first-born of every creature.? Apostolic Constitutions: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church.

Note: It has "Church of the Lord" and "the blood of Christ" there...

And again in the same section?

?Let the bishop pray for the people, and say: ?Save Thy people, O Lord, and bless Thine inheritance, which Thou hast obtained with the precious blood of Thy Christ,?? Apostolic Constitutions: Sec. VII.?On Assembling in the Church.

Note: It shows that The Father obtained His people, with the blood of His Christ/Messiah.


Also, Dave...

What do you say is heretical in doctrine, that is found in The Eastern Peshitta Text...And The Church of the East, which have preserved its readings?

I have found none so far.

Blessings,
Chuck

..
Reply
#41
:

Quote:whom he ordained The Heir of all things, and by him he made the universe.For he is The Brilliance of his glory, The Image of his Being, and upholds all things by the power of his word; and he in his Essential Being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high."Hebrews 1:3

Dave,

I'll compare your translation of Hebrews 2b-3 as you gave above?with A literal translation of The Eastern Aramaic Text of The Khabouris Manuscript?and with some Peshitto and Peshitta English Translations, along with the ?King James Version? of 1611 and the Revised Version of 1885. And a literal translation made by H.T. Anderson of the Sinaiticus Manuscript...And I will put in (brackets) the distinction I see in the texts of (The Father) & (Yeshua, The Son)?to show what I believe is the correct understanding of the passage.


Hebrews 2b-3 -A literal translation from the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta - Khabouris Manuscript.
??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) placed heir of everything, and in whom He (The Father) made the worlds, Who (Yeshua, The Son) is the radiance of His (The Father?s) glory, and the figure of His (The Father?s) essence, and holds all in the strength of His (The Father?s) Word. And He (The Son), in His (The Son?s) Person, performed the purification of sins, and was seated on the right of The Greatness (The Father) on high,?

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ?John Etheridge ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) constituted the heir of every thing, and by whom (The Son) He (The Father) made the worlds; who (Yeshua) himself (The Son) is the resplendence of His (The Father?s) glory, and the image of His (The Father?s) Being, and upholdeth all (things) by the power of His (The Father?s) Word; and He, (Yeshua, The Son) in His (The Son?s) Person, hath made purification of sins, and hath sat down at the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high.

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ?James Murdoch ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) hath constituted heir of all things, and by whom (Yeshua, The Son) He (The Father) made the worlds ; who (Yeshua, The Son) is the splendor of His (The Father?s) glory, and the image of (The Father) Himself, and upholdeth all by the energy of His (The Father?s) Word; and by Himself (Yeshua) He (The Son) made a purgation of sins, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high.

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ?George Lamsa ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) has appointed heir of all things, and by whom (Yeshua) also He (The Father) made the worlds; For He (Yeshua, The Son) is the brightness of His (The Father?s) glory and the express image of His (The Father?s) Being, upholding all things by the power of His (The Father?s) Word; and when He (Yeshua) had through His (Yeshua, The Son?s) Person, cleansed our sins, then He (The Son) sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high;?

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ?Janet Mageria ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) appointed heir of everything and by Whom (The Son) He (The Father) made the ages. Who (Yeshua, The Son) is the radiance of His (The Father?s) glory and the image of His (The Father?s) Being and almighty by the power of His (The Father?s) Word. And in His (Yeshua, The Son?s) Person, He (Yeshua, The Son) accomplished the cleansing of our sins and sat down at the right hand of Majesty (The Father) in the high places.?

Hebrews 1:2b-3 David Bauscher ???whom (The Son) he (The Father) ordained The Heir of all things, and by him (The Son) he (The Father) made the universe. For he (Yeshua, The Son) is The Brilliance of his (The Father?s) glory, The Image of his (The Father?s) Being, and upholds all things by the power of his (The Father?s) word; and he (Yeshua, The Son) in his (Yeshua, The Son?s) Essential Being has accomplished the purification of our sins, and he (The Son) sat down at the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high." Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ?Andrew Roth ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) has constituted heir of all things, and by Whom (The Son) He (The Father) made the worlds; Who (The Son) is the splendor of His (The Father?s) glory and the exact image of His (The Father?s) nature, and upholds all by the power of His (The Father?s) Word; and by His (Yeshua, The Son?s) Qnoma He (Yeshua, The Son) made a purification of sins and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high.?


Hebrews 2-3 ?H.T. Anderson?s literal translation of The Sinaiticus Manuscript
?Whom (The Son) He (The Father) has appointed heir of all things, through Whom (The Son) also He (The Father) made the ages, Who, (Yeshua, The Son) being the effulgence of His (The Father?s) glory and the exact image of His (The Father?s) substance, bearing onward also all things by the Word of His (The Father?s) power, when He (Yeshua, The Son) had through Himself (The Son) made a cleansing of sins sat down at the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high,?

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ? 1611 ?King James Version? ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom (The Son) also He (The Father) made the worlds; Who (Yeshua, The Son) being the brightness of His (The Father?s) glory, and the express image of His (The Father?s) person, and upholding all things by the Word of His (The Father?s) power, when He (Yeshua) had by Himself (The Son) purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high;?

Hebrews 1:2b-3 ?Revised Version 1885 ??Whom (The Son) He (The Father) appointed heir of all things, through Whom (The Son) also He (The Father) made the worlds; Who (Yeshua, The Son) being the effulgence of His (The Father?s) glory, and the very image of His (The Father?s) substance, and upholding all things by the word of His (The Father?s) power, when He (Yeshua, The Son) had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty (The Father) on high;?


Its very clear to me who it is that made purification of sins and sat down on the right hand of The Father... Yeshua,THE LAMB of GOD.

..
Reply
#42
:

And speaking of The Lamb of Alaha...in your (Dave's) translation I read this. Emphasis mine...

Revelation 5:8-9 8 And when he had received the scroll, The Four Beasts and 24 Elders fell down before the Lamb, while each one of them had a stringed instrument and a vessel of gold full of sweet spices, which are the prayers of The Holy Ones, 9 Singing a new hymn of praise, and they were saying, ?You are worthy to take the scroll and to loosen its seals, because you were slain and you have redeemed us by your blood to God from every tribe, nation and people,?

The Lamb's Blood redeemed mankind from every tribe, nation, and people... Now, who is The Lamb of Alaha? --> Yeshua, The Messiah.

This verse matches perfectly with what is found in Acts 20:28 of the Eastern Peshitta. "The Assembly of The Messiah, which He acquired with His blood." But not so much with the three variant readings, as found in the Greek manuscripts, and that which is found in the Western Peshitto manuscripts, which reads "The Church of Alaha, which He purchased with His own blood." which reading goes with some Greek manuscripts.

..
Reply
#43
Hi Chuck,

You wrote:
Quote:Dave...Y'shua was not talking to himself on the Cross...He was talking to His Father...and His God, as The Scriptures in any language teaches.
Where did that come from? If you are going to fabricate a straw man for my position by implying that I said Yeshua was talking to himself, then I am wasting my time dialoguing with you. I am a Trinitarian, not a Unitarian, and I never have said otherwise, nor ever written anything to the contrary.
You admitted that the reading of Acts 20:28 does not matter to you:
Quote:I personally do not care which proves to be the correct version, as its true either way...as I believe and teach that The Messiah is GOD/The Word...incarnate in Y'shua of Nazareth.

So no basic doctrine is at stake here if the scripture says that God shed His blood. I have given you other verses that are even more pointed, that say YHWH's blood and body sacrifice is celebrated in the Lord's supper- 1 Cor. 11, so Acts 20:28 is not exceptional. Also I am unclear as to your point in Hebrews 1:3; are you saying that "His Son" in verse 2 is not referring to Deity, but only his Manhood? Verse three is all predicated of The Son of God in verse 2. Through Him (His Son) God The Father made the worlds; His Son upholds all things by his word (if Paul meant the Father's word, he omitted to say that), but even if that were so, which strikes me as a very and strangely forced construction, still it is His Son who upholds all things. If the Father's uttered word upholds, then The Son is not upholding all things, but The Father is, so your interpretation here is incoherent. All the translations agree on this point, that through ( or in) the Son of God all things were created; either way, that refers to the Deity and Divine nature and Qnoma of Yeshua, as does the entire description of Him in verse 2 & 3, prior to His purging our sins, which is to say that the Deity, in the Person of The Son of God, purged our sins in His blood. Hebrews 9:16, which I also quoted, says the same thing: YHWH had to die to make the New Covenant effective. Jeremiah 31:31 is the OT scripture referred to, where YHWH says, "I will make a new covenant...".
Paul is plainly saying that YHWH shed His blood and died in order to effect the New Covenant.
Are you denying that? The Nestorians do deny that. But if you deny that, then Paul is writing lies in chapter 9, when he writes, "For where there is a testament (covenant), it shows the death of him who made it."

Of course the Messiah shed his blood, and the Messiah is YHWH, so YHWH The Messiah shed His blood. Please do not speak of the Messiah as a mere human:
Quote: The Messiah of GOD, the Perfect Sinless Human Being, which GOD's Word/Miltha tabernacled in, and was united with, which suffered, shed His Blood, died, was buried,

That is the heresy of the Gnostics, which you have picked up from Andrew, apparently. He has written that in almost exactly the same words in one of his NT notes. If I need to quote it verbatim and give the specific reference to prove it, I will do so. It is vile blasphemy to say The Divine Word was in the man Yeshua, and that the Messiah was merely human.
You seem to be very confused about what you really believe. You say The Messiah is YHWH Alaha, who died for us. You also say The Messiah is a man in whom The Divine Miltha dwelt. Which is it? It cannot be both.
Scripture does not say Yeshua had the Word/Miltha in Him. It says He is The Word. If you cannot see the supreme difference between those two propositions, I cannot help you, and our discussion is at an end.
I am not prepared to discuss my belief about the Trinity dying with The Messiah, until we can establish who you confess The Messiah to be.
Is He a man with YHWH in Him, or is He YHWH Himself, always, in every circumstance, in all His acts and words, forever and ever, absolutely and unequivocally?

[/i]
Blessings,

Dave
Reply
#44
:

Dave,

I will try to state my position with more detail, since you seem not to understand what I am saying. Its very simple really...if you don't confuse who The Father & The Son are...and their reltionship with each other.

I don't know all that Andrew Roth believes and teaches, nor all what you believe for that matter...only that I have read a few notes of yours and his, in both your 1st edition translations of The Western Peshitto (you) and The Eastern Peshitta (him)...I don't agree with either of you on some things you teach in some of the notes I have read so far.

For instance, you teach in your long note for the verse of Hebrews 2:9 that The Father & The Holy Spirit, died on the Cross....even going so far as teaching that when The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) died on the Cross, the 1st universe that existed to that point ceased to exist...and a new universe and earth was then created...In that note, you seem to be both a Preterist and a Universal Reconciliationist....Correct me if I misunderstood your teaching there in that note.

Also, since it seems that you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (The Trinity) died on the Cross....then you would believe that the Greek, and the Western Peshitto to have the correct reading in Acts 20:28.

If you just thought that Acts 20:28 was refering to The Son of God, as God The Word, who bled and died, who is both Divine & Human as to His natures, which constitute His Person, which I do believe, yet understand from The Scriptures and the witness of The Holy Spirit, that there is a unity of both GOD & Man...Yeshua being Both, as to substance and nature in ONE Person...The Father & The Son are ONE, in Unity, but are NOT the very same Person, as they are distict in Position and Authority within the Godhead.

BUT, you seem to have been teaching that it was not just The Lamb of GOD who suffered, bled and died to atone for sin, but that The Father & The Holy Spirit died on the Cross as well...And this is the problem I see in your teachings...if this is what you truly believe. If not, please clarify. And if you don't feel good about it here...then in a side conversation is fine with me.

I do not teach such a thing myself...And believe it is error, according to what is taught in The Scriptures.

You may not speak too much longer with me Dave, because you tend to leave abruptly when you are not agreed with. I've seen this repeated a few times already with you in the past. I am trying to be very polite to you Dave, and show you what I believe the Scriptures teach and which Scripture text is the Original reading.

I have shown already that the reading "Church of the Lord, which He purchased with His own blood" is the earliest form we have a witness for of Acts 20:28, which is quoted verbatim by Bishop Ireanaus about 170-180 A.D. That is LONG before the reading is found in Sinaiaticus (if that be the original reading of that text) there. Looks like some scratching off of the under texts, that was replaced with the overwritten text...

Again, Theologically/Christologicaly it works both ways fine...UNLESS, a person tries to make the "Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood" mean to teach, that The Father & The Holy Spirit, suffered, bled, and died on the Cross along with The Son of God The Father & who was born of His Holy Spirit. This is when the verse can become an issue of that kind.

Again, just to be clear Dave. So you don't misunderstand and perhaps misrepresent what I believe ---> I believe there is a correct distinction to be maintained in regards to The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit...and their relationship with each other...and should not be confused. Which I believe the Church of the East does maintain in their doctrines. And which I have always believed and understood the Scriptures to teach, and which I have seen so far from the teachings of Bishop Nestorius, that he and Bishop Theadore of Mopsuestia had the correct understanding as taught in The Scriptures and the Early Church Father's before their time.

And from what I have read so far from Cryril of Alexandria and those teachers from whom he was taught...they are in error, concerning the Two Natures of Yeshua, The Anointed One.

I am of the School of Antioch, not of the School of Alexandria...which is where things got messed up real bad, both in their texts, and doctrines.

You may continue to disagree with me Dave about this and other matters...But I wont be upset or get testy with you. But I will stand on what I bleieve is the Truth of the matter in each case..and earnestly contend for the Faith and teachings that were once given to the Saints, by Christ and His Apostles, and passed on to their disciples.

As to YHWH being The Messiah...this is certainly true.

And the Peshitta proves it like no other Text does....He is The WORD which proceeded forth from GOD, begotton before all worlds, as the Nicean Creed says, and in the fullness of time, was manifested and tabernacled in perfect union with The ONLY Sinless Human Being, Yeshua, The Son of God/The Son of Man...whom has ALWAYS been, the means by and through whom, GOD has and is communicating with Mankind. This is taught all over in The New Testament, which shows, that the Pre-incarnate Word of God The Father...was the One speaking with all the Patriarchs in the Old Testament times, and for mans sake was made flesh and dwelt among us, becomeing subject to death for our redemption.

The early Christians taught, that The Father is un-named. YHWH=The Word of God=Yeshua, The Son of God. Mar-Yah did indeed shed His blood...because Mar-Yah IS YHWH=Yeshua=The WORD of God the Father, manifested in the Person of Yeshua, The Messiah of GOD The Father.

We must maintain the correct distinction and ballance that is shown to us in The Holy Sriptures and that which is always taught by the early Church teachers.

Yeshua is not just a man with GOD in Him or united with Him...He is The Word of GOD, incarnate, who was "begotton of The Father before all worlds"...and prior to His Human incarnation...as The Creed states.

But Dave...this is going into a long discussion now, which is not specifically dealing with the textual issues which we had been discussing...as I said above, if you would like to continue to discuss the Doctrines...we can do that in another place...as I think this forum is not for such long discussions on doctrinal issues.

And if you don't want to do that, nor continue with just the textual matters...than I hope Blessings upon you Dave...I hold no offense against you in any personal manner whatsoever and have tried not to offend you in my words or actions.

I will continue to search for the answers as to why the Greek text went from "The Church of the Lord" (which looks to be the ealiest reading in the Greek copies), to "The Church of the Lord & God, (as found in the Majority of Greek texts examined so far), to "The Church of God" (which looks to be the minority reading and the latest in terms of time)...and try to learn why and where these vairant readings came from. I know that there were many groups with contending views about the Messiah, during the 2nd to 5th centuries, which these early qoutes and texts come from in point of time and people group...so that must be factored in to the equation.

Shalma,
Chuck
Reply
#45
Shlama Akhi Chuck,

I will gladly continue the textual discussion. I did not want this to be a doctrinal debate, so I will continue on the discussion of Acts 20:28.

My last question to you on this matter remains unanswered:
Quote:Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?

And

Quote: ?where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?

You accept that the Greek NT is a first century translation of the Peshitta, do you not? Why do almost all Greek mss. read, "church of God" or "Lord God", or "Lord and God", if the first century Peshitta manuscript from which they originated had" edta d'Meshikha" -"church of The Messiah"?

You may interpret either reading as you wish, and you have already admitted that either reading is orthodox, in your view. I do not think an astute Assyrian Christian would agree with you in this matter, and yet you are vehement that the Eastern reading is correct here, and also wherever the Western disagrees, no matter how large the majority of Peshitta mss. that read differently; am I getting that right about your position?

"Church of the Lord" is beside the point, though that reading agrees more with the majority Greek reading-"of the Lord God" or "of the Lord and God" than with "of The Christ". "Of The Christ" (tou Christou) is the reading we would expect in the Greek, if the original Peshitta reading was "Meshikha", yet not one known Greek ms. has it. Practically every Greek ms. has "God" in the reading; most have also "Kuriou"- "Lord" connected with "Theou" (God).

These are not insignificant facts.

Blessings,

Dave
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)