Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 177166 | ||
A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew? 'Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely claim the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. In doing so, JW’s openly trash the reliability of the Bible. 'YHWH "Yahweh" (The Tetragrammaton) Jehovah’s Witnesses are guilty of adding to the word of God by adding the divine name YHWH in the New Testament where it is never found in the original Greek manuscripts, and blamed the Bible as being corrupted. Rather than trashing their false doctrine, they trash the Bible! Their central premise is that Matthew was written in Hebrew but this is entirely false. 'The Wycliffe Bible commentary: Matthew, Pfeiffer, C. F. 'Composition and Date. The great frequency of citations and allusions to Matthew found in the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others attests its early composition and widespread use. The literary connections of this Gospel must be considered in its relations to the other Synoptics, and also to the statement of Papias that "Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted as he could" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39). Many have explained Papias’ statement as referring to an Aramaic original from which our Greek Gospel is a translation. Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation, and the absence of any trace of an Aramaic original casts grave doubts upon this hypothesis.' 'The fathers, from Papias to Eusebius, who perpetuated the old tradition regarding the Hebrew Gospel, themselves rest their assertion on tradition, i. e., on reports that they had heard. And none of these fathers, not even Papias himself, was able to name a single person who had seen - not to say handled - this alleged Hebrew Matthew. The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay, unsupported by a tangible fact and contradicted by all the probabilities involved as well as by several uncontested facts.' [To read more go to: www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm]. |
||||||
2 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177174 | ||
Oh Kalos, you are reminding me of too many things. I really don't care if the Jahovah's Witnesses claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew first. The fact remains that we have the Greek, and that is what God inteneded for us to have that is our baises for interpretation. There are many things the Jahovah's Witnesses believe, some of which are true. Just because a cult which has errors in its teachings believes something, does not mean it is therefor false. "The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay" It is very serious to call something a hearasy. Just because some believe there is evidence for a Hebrew Matthew does not mean they are Heritics. We must be careful how we use that term. (I know you were quoting someone else) MJH |
||||||
3 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 177176 | ||
MJH - It is apparent from that particular context of your post in which you quote a segment from Kalos' post 177166 that you are confusing the word "hearsay" with "heresy." Although they look very nearly alike in print and sound similar in speech, they are dissimilar in meaning. You write, "It is very serious to call something a hearsay (sic). Just because some believe there is evidence for a Hebrew Matthew does not mean they are Heretics (sic). We must be careful how we use that term." ..... I agree. Kalos WAS careful and used the term "hearsay" correctly and in harmony with the meaning intended. You in turn responded as though he had called the reports of the fathers heresy when in fact he called them hearsay. ..... Words, words, words! How tricky they can be :-) --Hank | ||||||
4 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177183 | ||
You are correct and for that I appologize. I should read more closely! MJH |
||||||