Posted on 04/20/2009 5:26:00 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Why are you being so mean to her?
There's likely more to this story then we can see. Perhaps this was the final straw for this guy. Perhaps it was a willful and deliberate act of disobedience against God. God only knows. God only knows. At any rate, he was stoned at the direct request of God. It was a criminal penalty for the nation state of Israel at that time. We don't live in such a society.
Light on research? Well, the oldest Eusebius' manuscripts (Latin copies) date to the 4th century AD. The oldest Tertullian copy is 9th century AD.
Hyppolitus is no different. His original; Greek-language works have been translated into Latin and survive only in copies no older than 13th century AD.
The earliest work of Cyprian is 359 AD, a quarter of a century after the First Ecumenical Council.
I am sure a little further search would show that the last two of your references are equally post-Nicene copies.
Besides, there is strong evidence that the Church Fathers redacted the New Testament.
The existence of such passages as Comma Johanneum and Pericope Adulterae, and Mark 16:9-20 only testify to such.
I seriously doubt that any of your quotes is even remotely close to the time when the authors lived. Eusebius' own quotes of Mat 28:19 contain the Trinitarian formula in five instances, all of which are post-Nicene. The other seventeen references without it are all pre-Nicene.
You need to concentrate on the dates of the source and not when the author is believed to have lived.
That verse basically says that all who become Jewish (converts) shall be treated as equals. Obviously, they are no longer "Gentiles."
God didn't want there to be a difference between those who joined themselves to Israelites and native born Israelites
Sure, a convert to Judaism is as much Jewish as anyone "born" Jewish. Christianity is not Judaism. The Church history proves it: neither the Jews nor the Christians wanted to do anything with each other, especially after Jamnia (99 AD). Writings of Church Fathers confirm this beyond any doubt. And since Jamnia to this day, the Jews pray every day for God to punish the 'Mininim' (the Nazarene heretics).
Well that's not fair. You can't use this verse to support your argument that Jesus never commanded to preach to the gentiles...And then deny this quote which uses the exact same word, ethnos...It could be, but even if not the statement is a statement about baptism, not the Godhead. It's a baptismal formula.
No it's not. Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 (pre-Nicene) no less than 17 times, which reads ""Go and make disciples of all nations in my name." There is no bpatism in this. The baptismal and Trinitarian forumulae were added later to fit the new post-Nicene official Church theology.
In view of his own statement of mission (only to the lost seep of Israel), the word ethnos can only be understood to mean all tribes of Israel and not Gentiles.
We know this, again, from the Gospel of Matthew. When asked what's in it for the 12 disciples Jesus picked (cf Math 19:27) he answers "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." [Mat 19:28)
Everything in the Gospels points to his ministry being solely for the lost sheep of Israel, the 12 tribes thereof. It was Paul who changed the story and sold everyone the new religion he created. He did it to save the Way which otherwise would have died out in Israel.
We are not going to agree on this
Because you choose not to accept some clear verses in the Gospels.
I believe Paul in scripture when he says that anyone can partake of the promises made to Israel through Jesus Christ.
Yes, Paulianity is alive and well. People choose to believe Paul more than the Gospels.
Would you mind giving me the source of your quotes?
:)
Thank you for your reply. With all due respect, then the entire bible would seem unreliable if one followed your methodology. Your concerns seem to be one of reliability of the textural transmission, and not the date of the original ms. Just because the extant ms is younger than Nicea - that does not automatically rule it out as source material. You would have to prove to me that the extant copies of Tertullian, Hyppolitus, etc were not accurately transmitted to us from the period the original autograph was written. Throw out as well the very trinitarian statements by other ANF writers too. Thats a lot of redaction that someone had to go through to change this particular doctrine. If there was no doctrine surrounding the trinity Pre - Nicea - then the whole Arius issue was a waste of time.
Interesting too in that by AD 360 Constantius succeeded in making the Arian doctrine orthodox. That makes the presence of the current passage in Mt 28:19 very puzzling, if it was added to support the trinitarian doctrine, it would have been easily taken back out at that time since it runs counter to Arian doctrine. IIRC Constantine switched over to Arianism shortly after Nicea. Oldest MT ms run 4th century and contains the full citation, why didn’t Arian redactors change it if Constantine ordered it in there before becoming an Arian? It wasn’t until the end of the 4th century that Arianism was finally pushed out though it existed for some time afterwards.
Bruce Metzger’s definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, is there any mention of variants of this text that do not have “eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos” Even the ultra-liberal Jesus Seminar folks state “Jesus Seminar” have unconditionally noted:
28:19 The Father and the son and the holy spirit is the earliest Trinitarian formula in the New Testament. (Robert J. Miller, Editor, The Complete Gospels, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994, p. 114)
Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman in a letter to L. Ray Smith makes this observation - “Most scholars have not been convinced, however, primarily because the verses are found in every solitary manuscript of Matthew, whether Greek, Latin, or …. any other ancient language, and are cited by yet other church fathers. Most interpreters think that the later doctrine of the trinity is not necessarily implied by the verses, but that they are simply read that way by people who know about the trinity. But in any event, most textual scholars think that the verses are almost certainly original to matthew. “
And there are others who view Eusebius’ citation as an abbreviation - noting he did similar to Phil. 2:9. Finally, he cites MT 28:19 three different ways. There are many observations by scholars that suggest Eusebius’ citation may not accurately reflect what the true text was.
Selecting Eusebius’s citations over all the New Testament manuscripts and as well as other writings by the ANF (as well as the Didache) demonstrates an inconsistent use of Textual Criticism.
I am not ignorant of the insertion of material into the NT by copyists over the course of time. That is relatively well established and identified by bible scholars. The question is how much is accidental and how much has been deliberately redacted. And yes, hundreds of thousands of variants, dozens of various language translations, yet we have a bible that scholars understand where these variants occur and have worked backwards and in parallel through textural criticism to resolve most of these questions.
Tertullian On Baptism - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.toc.html
Against Praxeas - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm
Hippolytus - http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Hippolytus.html (also foundat http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
Cyprian - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.toc.html
Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html
Oldest MT ms run 4th century and contains the full citation
Matthew 28:19 does not exist in any 4th century manuscript known. Papyrus P105 (end of 5th, beginning of 6th century) goes only to Mat 28:2-5. It is found in much, much later copies.
Constantine was Arian but the Church wasn't. Constantine did not write Patristic books.
Mat 28:19 is uncharacteristic of anything in Matthew, the Gospels or the entire New Testament. It is uncharacteristic of anything Christ is quoted as saying. It would be uncharacteristic of Christ's own Judaism to make such a statement.
The Trinitarian Mat 28:19 exists in every known copy, and all of them are post-Nicene. We only learn from pre-Nicene references to/quotes of the verse that it was not there.
Biblical fragments dating to pre-Nicene period do not contain the verse, and it is curious that this particular verse is missing from all of them, as if intentionally expunged, or "conveniently" lost!
From a textual criticism point of view, strictly speaking the surviving post-Nicene biblical texts that do contain Mat 28:19 contain it in a Triniartian form. But, you are right, I do not consider Biblical texts reliable at all. No one is his right mind should.
The same holds true of all Church documents. The Church made no secret that it would allow only its version of official truth to be transmitted to posterity. With such agenda, and with a documented destruction of all "unwanted" sources by the (Latin) Church, God only knows what the truth is. I think doubt is justified until facts can be established beyond the shadow of a doubt. Until then, we will have those who are willing to make a "leap of faith" and those who won't.
Isn't that merely an ad hoc assumption on your part? The plain meanng of the text, and this verse:
Numbers 15
40so that you may remember to do all My commandments and (AC)be holy to your God.
Indicate that it was to help Israel to “...remember to do all My commandments ...”
for the nation state of Israel at that time. We don't live in such a society.
Of course. But that was not the point. The point was that God meant that such things as “gathering wood” were included in “any work,” AND that He really meant it.
DG
p.s. Have you found any place in the New Testsment where the Decalogue is set forth fully and exclusively yet?
According to who? There is a word in the nt that is translated "tribes". It's used in this verse:
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Transliterated it is "phylē" and it means:
A tribe.
a) in the NT all the persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch, Jacob
2) a nation, people
When a tribe of tribes of Israel is referred to, this is always the word that is used.
Gentiles, non-Israelites, are referred to as "ethnos". Ethnos is the word translated gentiles and nations:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
So why do you insist that Jesus meant "tribes of Israel" when he said "ethnos"? Presumably when this was put down in writing they knew the difference and used the proper language when they wished to convey "tribes of Israel" or gentiles. Do words mean anything?
Who are the lost sheep and where were they located in your opinion?
I'll grant that it's an assumption and I'll also grant that working on the sabbath is a sin. If the guy gathering firewood didn't know that working on the sabbath was a sin, then killing him for violating made no sense. It's not the way of God. If he knew and willfully said "screw God", I'm going to do this anyways then he violated not only God's law but the law of Israel at the time. A penalty was imposed and carried out.
p.s. Have you found any place in the New Testsment where the Decalogue is set forth fully and exclusively yet?
There are several references to it. Why do you ask?
First it's not my opinion, but a biblical definition. It couldn't be clearer, which is why perhaps everyone is in denial.
Matthew 10:5 defines the lost sheep of Israel as neither Gentiles nor (even) Samaritians. That excludes everyone but the Jews.
Psalm 119:176 says "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Your servant,For I do not forget Your commandments."
And Jeremiah 50:6 says "My people have become lost sheep; Their shepherds have led them astray."
Obviosuly, both references are to the apostates who have abandoned their Hebrew faith. Since Gentiles cannot be "apostates," obviously they cannot be the lost sheep, certainly not the lost sheep of the house of Israel, because the Gentiles are not, and never have been considered the huse of Israel.
Jesus specifically says he was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel (Mat 15:24). Now, which part part in all this is still unclear to you?
The fact that Paul later on makes up a story, drops the law in order to make us all one and the same through Christ is not what Christ of the Gospels taught. It is not what the OT teaches. It's what Paul invented. If you believe Paul, that's fine, but don't call it Cristianity because it's not; it's Paulianity.
There is no documented proof for the so-called Noachide Laws (7 laws) existing prior to the Tosefta. They were likely a Second Century answer to issues regarding Christianity’s rise and Gentile proselyte (to Judaism) problems. The Talmud makes multiple refernces, but none are found in the Mishnah. The Tanaim had several opinions on the laws a Gentile must observe to be “righteous” - the number varying from 3 to 7 to 11.
Your view is what is unclear to me. That's why I'm trying to determine.
When you say "abandoned their Hebrew faith" are you saying that it's ethnic Jews who aren't following, or abandoned, the Jewish religion during the time of Christ?
Let's see, from the standard Koine Greek dictionary:
(1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together,
(2) a company, troop, swarm
(3) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
(4) a tribe, nation, people group
Transliterated it is "phyle" and it means: A tribe. a) in the NT all the persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch, Jacob 2) a nation, people
You have made my work easier. Obviously, ethnos and phyle“ both mean tribe and/or nation. They are interchangeable, and are often found translated interchangeably (cf Gen 25:16). This is because a tribe is synonimous with a nation (i.e. American Indian tribes are nations).
The Greek word phyle in the Old Testament is used in place of shebet, which means "clan." Clan is not a tribe. Clans subsist within a tribe as groups gathered around some idea, a party if you will.
Again, Christ specifically taught to avoid gentiles and Samaritans. Matthew 28:19 is a contradiction of his specific mission purpose and instructions given to his disciples (which they violated almost immediately after the Penetecost when they went to Samaria, probably out of desperation).
Any other interpretation makes no sense vis-a-vis Jesus and the OT. It makes perfect sense in the context of the religion created by Paul, which was precisely his agenda: to spread this Jewish sect and "sell" it to the pagan Greeks and Romans. In doing so, Paul saved Christianity from certain extinction in Israel. He repackaged it and sold it as a universal product.
Obviously all references to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Jeremiah, Psalm, Jesus) are to those who were once observant Jews.
And obviously the OT refreences to the lost sheep as well as those of Jesus in the Gospels cannot include Christians.
What! Everything can be settled here. :) Yes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Your rejection of quotes from ANF on basis of the date of the oldest extant copy without showing that they are disputed in any other way is disturbing to me and runs counter to what I have learned of textural criticism.
Many scholars I've studied do consider the text now used for bible translation to be reliable. Another area we will have to agree to disagree upon.
The absence of that passage in older extant copies is not suprising - Mt 28 is the last chapter and would be found on the last page(s) of codex and subject to being lost the easiest,from normal wear and tear, so there is no need for a sinister excuse for the absence.
While you may consider the statement uncharacteristic of the Jewish Jesus (and we have learned a great deal about Jesus' sayings by studying the cultural context in greater detail in recent years) - consider that this was the post-resurrected Jesus, no longer constrained by cultural norms launching the disciples forward as part of the New Covenant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.