Tongues?

[Guest kingdombrat]

5 hours ago, Duck said:

Is it?

 

We are discussing [Tongues] aren't we?

And the [Church Fathers] made several claims the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark had many similarities.   And it should, because Peter spoke the words of Mark to Mark [Peter's Disciple] who translated Peter's Aramaic/Hebrew words into Greek.   But in the Gospel of Mark Jesus states you know my Followers by [Speaking in Tongues].   < That similar thought/passage can also be found in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.   So both the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark [Peter] you can find a reference to [Speaking in Tongues]!

[David1701]

21 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Why trust the Greek Version that [clearly was the translated version] of the Hebrew version?

 

Proof the [original] Matthew was written by Matthew in Hebrew but [no one] knows who translated it into Greek.   Why would you trust a translation over the Original?

 

Papias: Matthew composed the sayings of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as best as they could (Eusebius's Church History 3.39.16).

 

   Irenaeus: Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and founding the church in Rome (Against Heresies 3.1.1).

 

  Origen: The first Gospel was that according to Matthew, who was once a toll-collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ. He published it for those who became believers from Judaism, since it was composed in the Hebrew language (Eusebius's Church History 6.25.4).

 

Jerome: Matthew – who was also (called) Levi – was an apostle and former tax-collector. He first composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and wrote for the Jews of Judea. It is not known who translated the Gospel into Greek. The Hebrew Gospel still exists, and Jerome claimed to have read it. (Illustrious Men 3)

 

We don't even know WHO translated the Hebrew Matthew into Greek.   Don't you think that is important to know who wrote the version you base your Salvation upon?

Did you read the link I posted? 

1) We don't know that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew at all. 

2) We don't know that the Greek gospel of Matthew is a translation from anything. 

3) The Papias quote could have been about a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew, rather than a gospel.

On a separate note, Origen was a Gnostic heretic, so anything he wrote should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Jerome is also not regarded as trustworthy, since he was a fan of Origen, and made such a hash of his reworking of the Vulgate.

[Guest kingdombrat]

34 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Did you read the link I posted? 

1) We don't know that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew at all. 

2) We don't know that the Greek gospel of Matthew is a translation from anything. 

3) The Papias quote could have been about a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew, rather than a gospel.

On a separate note, Origen was a Gnostic heretic, so anything he wrote should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Jerome is also not regarded as trustworthy, since he was a fan of Origen, and made such a hash of his reworking of the Vulgate.

Why don't we know?   We have at least the FOUR Church Fathers/Ancient Writers I listed with their written account.   And the source I went to also included several others.   So, why do we think all of these Ancient Resources are incorrect?   Because a modern day scholar claims so?   Are you for real?

[SwordMaster]

Quote

Very good considering what they had to work with. A little 'monarchistic' in places and 'RC' in others, but on the whole an excellent work.

 

Except that by today's standard, the KJV has many, many translation errors. I would never recommend the KJV to anyone.

..

 

 

[SwordMaster]

Justin said...

 

Quote

 

Take great care with the 'church fathers'. Irenaeus wrote in 'Against heresies' that Yeshua/Jesus was over 50 years old... etc.

Be careful.

 

 

Citation/reference, please?

Granted, I have not read all of his work, but I have read a few and I don't remember coming across that.

Thanks.

..

 

 

[Justin Adams]

6 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Justin said...

 

 

Citation/reference, please?

Granted, I have not read all of his work, but I have read a few and I don't remember coming across that.

Thanks.

..

 

 

Catholics have over the years tried to debunk Irenaeus’ claim in in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Why? Because Irenaeus invoked both Scripture and extra-biblical tradition to prove that Jesus “ was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age.” Obviously, this false teaching on Irenaeus’ part shows that, even as early as the second century, traditions can be made-up and staunch defenders of the Church are not superintended by the Spirit in which they can avoid botching Biblical interpretations.

And, if this can happen as early as the second century with a saint, what guarantee do we have that well meaning men have not erred when relaying traditions such as the bodily assumption of Mary (first written in the 6th) or the interpretation of Petrine Primacy in Matt 16:18 (4th Century, excluding Tertullian)?

While Irenaeus’ words in AH 2.22.4-6 are so clear that it really does not require finding any more evidence that he was wrong about Jesus’ lifespan, what the heck, let’s go over some more evidence that Irenaues said what he meant and meant what he said.

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2016/08/25/more-proof-irenaeus-thought-jesus-lived-to-50-years-old/

Edited December 9, 2020 by Justin Adams

[Duck]

19 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Is it?

 

We are discussing [Tongues] aren't we?

And the [Church Fathers] made several claims the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark had many similarities.   And it should, because Peter spoke the words of Mark to Mark [Peter's Disciple] who translated Peter's Aramaic/Hebrew words into Greek.   But in the Gospel of Mark Jesus states you know my Followers by [Speaking in Tongues].   < That similar thought/passage can also be found in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.   So both the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark [Peter] you can find a reference to [Speaking in Tongues]!

^{1 Cor. 12}

³⁰ Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 

³¹ But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

13:1

      Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

loving our enemies, now there’s a gift

Edited December 9, 2020 by Duck

[Guest kingdombrat]

3 hours ago, Duck said:

^{1 Cor. 12}

³⁰ Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 

³¹ But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

13:1

      Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

loving our enemies, now there’s a gift

None of what I posted claimed [that] we all should Speak in Tongues.   

[Guest kingdombrat]

4 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Catholics have over the years tried to debunk Irenaeus’ claim in in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 that Jesus lived to be about 50 years old. Why? Because Irenaeus invoked both Scripture and extra-biblical tradition to prove that Jesus “ was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age.” Obviously, this false teaching on Irenaeus’ part shows that, even as early as the second century, traditions can be made-up and staunch defenders of the Church are not superintended by the Spirit in which they can avoid botching Biblical interpretations.

And, if this can happen as early as the second century with a saint, what guarantee do we have that well meaning men have not erred when relaying traditions such as the bodily assumption of Mary (first written in the 6th) or the interpretation of Petrine Primacy in Matt 16:18 (4th Century, excluding Tertullian)?

While Irenaeus’ words in AH 2.22.4-6 are so clear that it really does not require finding any more evidence that he was wrong about Jesus’ lifespan, what the heck, let’s go over some more evidence that Irenaues said what he meant and meant what he said.

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2016/08/25/more-proof-irenaeus-thought-jesus-lived-to-50-years-old/

Using these methods, most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC, and that Jesus' preaching began around AD 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate the death of Jesus as having taken place between AD 30 and 36.

 

 

Chronology of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

Oddly enough,  the Biblical dates surrounding Herod at Yeshua's birth are sketchy because Herod was dead in Bible frame/actual frame when Christ was born (if Christ was born 4 BC).

 

So the numbers aren't as specific as I had thought.   I'm not giving Irenaeus a pass here, but even Scholars think Jesus could have been between 30 to 40.

[Paul James]

On 12/10/2020 at 12:28 AM, Duck said:

^{1 Cor. 12}

³⁰ Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 

³¹ But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

13:1

      Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

loving our enemies, now there’s a gift

Most who never manifest any spiritual gift but are content with their three hymns, sermon and morning tea afterwards, going home full of tea and biscuits instead of the Holy Spirit, quote the above Scripture to justify their own position concerning the spiritual gifts.

 

The Scripture says, "Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy."  Many "Sunday Christians" go on about the importance of love, but ignore the rest of the verse, because manifesting spiritual gifts, especially prophecy is not for their religious observance.