Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | BradK | 177178 | ||
Hi MJH, I'm not sure how you would rank denial of the Diety of Christ in your statement that, "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 Council of Nicea in 325 certainly thought otherwise. I would call that not only significant, but a test of Orthodoxy in what constitutes a true believer! Your statement seems a bit akin to calling a barrel full of apples, OK because it only has a few rotten one amongst them! A cult is a cult and heresy is heresy! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177184 | ||
The Jahovah's witnesses believe: in one God; in a round earth, in gravity, and in the necessity of water to sustain life. All of these things are true. So just because a JW believes them too does not mean they must be false because they are considered a cult. That is the point I was making. In Kalos' note, the person he quoted was making the argument that since JW believe in an original Hebrew Matthew, that therefore it must not be true. Logically, this is not a good argument as I showed above. Whether there is or is not a Hebrew Matthew originally has nothing to do with the JW. MJH |
||||||
4 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 177218 | ||
Neither I nor the person I quoted was trying to make the argument that an original Hebrew Matthew must not be true since the JWs believed it. If I had made that argument then, yes, I would be mistaken. But that is not the argument I made. Not even close. The only point I was making with that part of my post is that "In doing so, JW’s (and all others who do this) openly trash the reliability of the Bible." How do you interpret the following to mean that the JW's belief in a Hebrew Matthew makes the belief false? It just isn't there. "'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." --Kalos |
||||||
5 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 177222 | ||
Hi Kalos, Is this not perhaps a bit harsh? As MJH has already plainly stated that God intended us to have the Greek Gospel of Matthew, and to understand Scripture from that particular writing, how does it "trash the reliability of the Bible" if one might think that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek? This idea has no bearing on one's thinking that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is the inspired Word of God. God could have brought it about however He wished to, and no matter what our different ideas are on how that occured, we all agree on the finished product. Now, I couldn't agree with you more that if someone uses that idea to claim knowledge superceding the Greek gospel that they are flat out wrong. But I fail to see how holding that opinion is equal to denigrating Scripture itself. Myself, I don't know one way or the other whether Matthew wrote in Hebrew first, or Aramaic, for that matter. Comparing the Peshitta to the Greek text lends some interesting support to the notion, especially in the "camel through the eye of the needle" verse, since in Aramaic "camel" and "rope" are homonyms. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||