-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
The earliest GREEK text is not known until 400 A.D. or so...for any NT...Shem Tov was probably proven to be earlier and not a translation of Latin or Greek by George Howard, Moody Institute.
In any case Eusebius mentions two who had the most original Hebrew Texts in their personal library, Irenaeus and I think Papias.
There is conjecture why we lost these, however the Great Trinitarian Hoax may play some part. SINCE Mt 28:19 is missing in the Hebrew text, and possibly some Greek ones. Notably the Syriac Sinaiticus. At least in the form we know, with the trinitarian formulation. Eusebius himself mentions a short version without the trin formula 18-21 times depending on the references. At least two of these mention the importance of Jesus' name in baptism INSTEAD.
outhouse
Atheistically
And this was debated by the early fathers for hundreds of years. It took a court hearing to settle the issue.
This thread has almost completely devoid of any talk on Christology. Most here don't even know of the term, or even attempted to address it in context.
There is little evidence that "son of God" was a title for the messiah in 1st century Judaism, and the attributes which Mark describes in Jesus are much more those of the Hellenistic miracle-working "divine man" than of the Jewish Davidic messiah
- Jesus became God's son at his resurrection, God "begetting" Jesus to a new life by raising him from the dead – this was the earliest understanding, preserved in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:3–4, and in Acts 13:33;
- Jesus became God's son at his baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit marking him as messiah, while "Son of God" refers to the relationship then established for him God – this is the understanding implied in Mark 1:9–11;
- Matthew and Luke present Jesus as "Son of God" from the moment of conception and birth, with God taking the place of a human father;
- John, the last of the gospels, presents the idea that the Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus – an idea also found in Paul.[43]
When would you like to start?
outhouse
Atheistically
One more time.
There is no credibility for a Hebrew Matthew.
The unknown authors of Matthew, plagiarized the Koine gospel of Mark, and there are NO telltale marks of a translation
So report me. Otherwise go where no outhouses are. Bee an Abrahamic Monotheist, bee happy.
outhouse
Atheistically
Not credible research. Nor will you find any. It doesn't exist.
You have little credibility yourself, considering all texts as imaginations and plagiarizations.
He know more than you will ever. Know. You know nottink. Kernal Klink.
My jokes are sillious to silly people. VERY sillious. That means DEAT-LY sillious.
outhouse
Atheistically
I actually do have credibility.
You assume poorly, I never stated all text are imagination, so now your intellectual honesty is in question.
Marks gospel was plagiarized, and it holds almost a consensus view by those educated here. And since I can source that, it leaves YOU in a position of questioned credibility.
The most widely accepted hypothesis today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material.
Why would Eusebius speak of a Matthean Hebrew Text in someone's library then? Did not the gospel go to Jerusalem first? Luke 24
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Of COURSE this would be the "consensus." Since trinitarianism is now well established. Too many Hebraisms are ANATHEMA to the modern mind-set. I.e. Jesus' actual name, Yeshua, said twice in Shem Tov, and the short version, Yeshu, said many more. The abbreviated "YHWH" for God. These would be ODD to the modern "scholars" why? Since they say JEEZUZ? And since God is at best THEOS?
No he doesn't.he guesses and is wrong, and is not accepted by the consensus I happen to belong to.
Maybe you are consensually one in the flesh with the Adulteress. Never can tell...
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Does not give him the credibility I hold.
He is ignored by most modern scholars.
I obviously know something he does not.
Sorry I thought you are atheist. Atheists don't in general consider any text true, in canon.
The dumb idea that Matthew came after Mark is the dumb idea that add-ons come from a core set of common ligature. I mean verses. Since Matthew is more verbose than Mark, and since they share the same core ligature, I mean verses, then add-ons must come after. And core ligature I mean verses were where they started. Just guessin.
He is Moody. He is eminent. And he has a PHD in hard core cage fighting.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its much more then the layered additions on the first gospel.
It also dates earlier.
Do you even know why Mathew is first in the NT?
outhouse
Atheistically
He is apologist man, able to leap small bibles in a single biased bound.
It would after all make sense that Mark being in Rome and Matthew being in Jerusalem would have a gospel independent, or from a shared first oral tradition or brief writing, EITHER one adding what they knew first hand from the experience to walk with Yeshua. Since the gospel went to Jerusalem first, it would be rational and reasonable to figure a Hebrew text made early on. There are in fact especially good reasons to believe the Great Commission expressed in Mt 28:19 is a later addition even to a Greek manuscript of Matthew. They already believed Jesus is God, and baptism by now was in contention itself, from single immersion to triple immersion, in accordance to a new formula, the Trinity. The earliest manuscripts of gospel didn't necessarily even have baptism stressed at all. Paul's evangelism did not include baptism but to two, in 1 Cor 14. Acts has four instances of baptism in Jesus' name only, and no NT has any version of baptism in the trin formula except Mt 28:19.
outhouse
Atheistically
Unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Plausible origins, but Syria and Antioch are also plausible. But mark did not write the book. The author is unknown.
Unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Syria has the most plausibility.
JM2C
CHRISTIAN
if “the Word is the God” then how do you explain “and the Word was with God” in the 2nd clause? Does not compute, does it?
I like the Syriac Sinaiticus, if that's what you mean. I believe this was a translation of the Hebrew Matthew. A super-early one. Super duper early.
It is even possible Syriac Sinaiticus came before the Hebrew Gospel. But Jesus told them to go to Jerusalem first and there the indwelling Spirit came. Luke 24.
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Last edited: