Church history and evolution in Christianity dogma
Church history and evolution in Christianity dogma
Matthew 28:19 – The Authenticity Question, Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church, Hegesippus
Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church
------------
[a.d. 170.] One of the sub-Apostolic age, a contemporary of Justin and of the martyrs of "the good Aurelius," we must yet distinguish Hegesippus from the apologists. He is the earliest of the Church's chroniclers-we can hardly call him a historian. His aims were noble and his character was pure; nor can we refuse him the credit due to a foresight of the Church's ultimate want of historical material, which he endeavoured to supply.
What is commonly regarded as his defect is in reality one of his greatest merits as a witness: he was a Hebrew, and looks at the Church from the stand-point of "James the Lord's brother." When we observe his Catholic spirit, therefore, as well as his Catholic orthodoxy; his sympathy with the Gentile Church and Pauline faith of the Corinthians; his abhorrence of "the Circumcision" so far as it bred sects and heresies against Christ; and when we find him confirming the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, and sustaining the traditions of Antioch by those of Jerusalem,-we have double reason to cherish his name, and to treasure up "the fragments that remain" of his works. That touching episode of the kindred of Christ, as they appeared before Domitian, has always impressed my imagination as worthy to be classed with the story of St. John and the robber, as one of the most suggestive incidents of early Christian history. We must lament the loss of other portions of the Memoirs which were known to exist in the seventeenth century. He was a traveller, and must have seen much of the Apostolic churches in the East and West; and the mere scraps we have of his narrative concerning Corinth and Rome excite a natural curiosity as to the rest, which may lead to gratifying discoveries.
Concerning the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord, from Book V.
James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woollen garment, but fine linen only. He alone, I say, was wont to go into the temple: and he used to be found kneeling on his knees, begging forgiveness for the people-so that the skin of his knees became horny like that of a camel's, by reason of his constantly bending the knee in adoration to God, and begging forgiveness for the people. Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defence of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
Now some persons belonging to the seven sects existing among the people, which have been before described by me in the Notes, asked him: "What is the door of Jesus? " And he replied that He was the Saviour. In Consequence of this answer, some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects before mentioned did not believe, either in a resurrection or in the coming of One to requite every man according to his works; but those who did believe, believed because of James. So, when many even of the ruling class believed, there was a commotion among the Jews, and scribes, and Pharisees, who said: "A little more, and we shall have all the people looking for Jesus as the Christ.
They came, therefore, in a body to James, and said: "We entreat thee, restrain the people: for they are gone astray in their opinions about Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all who have come hither for the day of the passover, concerning Jesus. For we all listen to thy persuasion; since we, as well as all the people, bear thee testimony that thou art just, and showest partiality to none. Do thou, therefore, persuade the people not to entertain erroneous opinions concerning Jesus: for all the people, and we also, listen to thy persuasion. Take thy stand, then, upon the summit of the temple, that from that elevated spot thou mayest be clearly seen, and thy words may be plainly audible to all the people. For, in order to attend the passover, all the tribes have congregated hither, and some of the Gentiles also."
The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."
And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.
And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.
And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.
Concerning the relatives of our saviour.
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.
When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.
Concerning the martyrdom of Symeon the son of Clopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.
The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Saviour, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded.
He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trojan Caesar: that is, until the time when he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by the various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and, while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself, were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified.
... Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."
Concerning his journey to Rome, and the Jewish sects.
And the church of the Corinthians continued in the orthodox faith up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I had some intercourse with these brethren on my voyage to Rome, when I spent several days with the Corinthians, during which we were mutually refreshed by the orthodox faith.
On my arrival at Rome, I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord....
And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord's uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.
Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching. Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....
There were, moreover, various opinions in the matter of circumcision among the children of Israel, held by those who were opposed to the tribe of Judah and to Christ: such as the Essenes, the Galileans, the Hemerobaptists, the Masbothaei, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Pharisees.
Matthew 28:19 – The Authenticity Question
In HIS name the nations will put their hope Matthew 12:21
you will be hated by all nations because of MY name. Matthew 24:9
Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine, to bear MY name before the nations Acts 9:15
repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in HIS name to all the nations Luke 24:47
Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of JESUS CHRIST. Acts 2:38
they had only been baptized in the name of the LORD JESUS. Acts 8:16
everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through HIS name.... he ordered that they be baptized in the name of JESUS CHRIST. Acts 10:43,48
they were baptized in the name of the LORD JESUS. Acts 19:5
Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on HIS name. Acts 22:16
we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for the sake of HIS name. Romans 1:5
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into CHRIST JESUS have been baptized into HIS death? Romans 6:3
Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Corinthians 1:13
whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the LORD JESUS giving thanks to God the Father through HIM Colossians 3:17
Jesus' name means Yehowah (God) saves. He is his God's salvation, the Savior his God raised up.
Today many suggest that the original Matthew 28:19 was "in my (JESUS) name", based on the Bible's harmony and ancient sources from bishop Eusebius, bishop Aphraates the Syrian and others.
If "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" reading is what the eleven disciples of Jesus were commanded by him to do, why then is there no evidence whatsoever that they ever did what he commanded, and why does it appear that there is only evidence indicating that the disciples of Jesus did otherwise? Furthermore, why is there also contextual and internal evidence which strongly suggests Matthew never wrote these words?
But is there evidence that this could have been done? Yes. There are many such cases. Here is just one of them below.
The Augustine version of John 17:3, an example of doctrinal forgery
Scholars have shown that in antiquity there were many attempts to alter the text to sound according to elaborated doctrines. This is the case with that Augustine from Hippo (North Africa, (354 – 430)) wanted John 17.3 to be changed to say that the Father and Jesus is the only true God. If he got his way then we may have been stuck with that just like Matthew 28.19. So we know for a fact that trinitarians had the mind to alter the Scriptures. There's little doubt now that the Jews also altered Psalm 110.
Statement regarding Augustine
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, vol.7, St. Augustine: Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, tractate CV, chapter XVII.1-5, paragraph 3, translated into English by Rev. John Gibb, D.D.
Here's the words: "“And this,” Jesus adds, “is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.” The proper order of the words is, “That they may know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent, as the only true God.” Consequently, therefore, the Holy Spirit is also understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and Son, as the substantial and consubstantial love of both. For the Father and Son are not two Gods, nor are the Father and Son and Holy Spirit three Gods; but the Trinity itself is the one only true God."
Many never heard about this interesting fact regarding Augustine. The fact that people defend this altered Bible verses made to be in harmony with the doctrine is sad.
Can knowing the truth of the resurrection help you? (The real cause of the Charlie Hebdo murder)
IN MEMORIAM Oscar Cullmann
Journalists were killed by terrorists in the middle of Paris on January 7, 2015. Charlie Hebdo is a weekly French satirical magazine that mainly publishes illustrations (cartoons and cartoons), as well as reports, controversial articles and jokes. The magazine, with its strong left-wing and anti-religious views, is characterized by a critical attitude towards Islam, Catholicism, Judaism and right-wing extremism.
The magazine was founded in 1969 and was published until 1981. After a break of more than ten years, publishing was resumed in 1992. Edited by François Cavanna (1969–1981), Philippe Val (1992–2009) and Stéphane Charbonnier ( 2009) –2014). He responded to the challenges by maintaining the satirical tone of the magazine, which was repeatedly threatened by Islamist fundamentalists for putting Allah in an indescribable position.
The old headquarters was set on fire on November 2, 2011. On January 7, 2015, at an editorial meeting, the new headquarters of the satirical weekly in Paris were attacked. The attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine left 12 dead and 11 injured, the attackers being killed two days later by special police forces.
Because they have sown the wind, they will reap the storm. (Hosea 8: 7)
The real cause of Charlie Hebdo's murder is ignorance. On the one hand, on the part of those who provoked it and, on the other hand, on the part of those who participated in it. What is the boundary between brave joke and tasteless mockery? If he had known that whoever sows a sickle in the wind, he could have done it differently. Is it really that important to humiliate others? This is a good example for us.
On the one hand
On the other hand, if the doctrine of the resurrection had been known and taken seriously, it is probable that this crime would not have taken place either. Of course, they will not appreciate their own or others' lives if they can receive eternal salvation immediately without resurrection. Let us not be surprised if it happens to us today or tomorrow and our own brother will kill his brother, convinced that 72 virgins are waiting for him at his death.
According to the interpretation of the Bible by the first Protestant preachers, once we die, our eternal reward can only be given by God in the resurrection. Until then, death is a sweet dream (Martin Luther). Unfortunately, this has been forgotten or misinterpreted in many circles, because our Christian faith today - as in the past - is still under the scrutiny of pagan writers.
This is what the famous Protestant (Lutheran) theologian Oscar Cullmann drew attention to: Immortality of the soul or resurrection of the dead? A testimony of the New Testament. (Lecture at Ingersoll, 1955. London: Epworth.)
In his preface, he writes: “No other publication of mine has provoked such enthusiasm or violent hostility. Exegesis was the basis of this study and so far no broad critic has tried to reject me with exegesis.
In his conclusion, he warns that the teachings of the great philosophers, Socrates and Plato, cannot in any way be accompanied by the teachings of the New Testament, that is, they cannot be reconciled. But their identity, life, and death can still be evoked by Christians, as second-century apologists have shown.
The book was on the World Wide Web and this page was visited 205,718 times, after which the text was removed, why? Did the page go bankrupt or confuse someone upstairs if more people read the book? Also, reading the book, the question arose - since it is not a long study, unless Cullmann knew more about things than he dared to write, for fear of further complications? Could there be any foreign insertion in the Bible that undermines the inner harmony of the holy book and that is why today's Protestant preachers fall into large numbers into the hands of a wrong ideology?
And, of course, if these things turn out, it would certainly be an advantage for Protestant theology, because, as we can see, it is declining in number. It is not surprising, therefore, that if such data existed, they would be kept under a padlock with seven seals, so that the Protestant side would not fall to the horse's advantage in theological debates.
Hell and Mr. Fudge
- A little story about a big lie.
Short Movie Info
A young preacher (Mackenzie Astin) comes under attack from other members of his denomination when he dedicates a year of his life to prove whether or not hell really exists. This is a little story about a big lie.
Release Date (Streaming):
May 22, 2012, in *DVD 2014
Runtime:
1h 37m
Synopsis
Based on a true story, “Hell and Mr. Fudge” is the heartwarming story of a young Bible-belt preacher who is hired to research the subject of Hell, and as he immerses himself his life takes a spin. He finds himself on the outs with church and family, and facing opposition from a long-time foe. As his research takes him deeper, he questions whether God would punish a young friend in the fires of hell for “just wanting to see the world.” While some of his core beliefs about God and judgment are shaken, Edward Fudge emerges as a defender of faith and Scripture and a champion for God’s love.
Dove Review
This movie, based on a true story, is about grace but it is not without controversy regarding Hell. Primarily, the question that Edward Fudge intends to answer is: “Is Hell an eternal punishment or do evil doers simply perish?” Many fundamentalist Christians will not agree with Mr. Fudge’s conclusion.
Mackenzie Astin turns in a fine performance as the compassionate preacher who focuses on God’s grace for everyone. Soon he is searching the scriptures to determine whether the soul is immortal or not. He concludes that those who go to hell will finally perish and not exist in conscious eternal suffering. However, this idea of the soul being immortal for believers, but not for the unbeliever is not accepted by most churches past or present.
There are some nice qualities, including the emphasis on grace for “whosoever will”, and the viewer is left with some evidence and the expectation that they will make up their own mind on the topic of eternal suffering for non-believers. We award this interesting yet controversial film our Dove “Faith Friendly” Seal for ages 12 and over.
Information from the webpage
http://www.hellandmrfudge.org/
An eccentric stranger hires Edward Fudge for a bizarre project: He wants Fudge to investigate Hell.
Edward Fudge is a small-town Bible-belt preacher. Son of a respected church
leader known for his conservative religious views, Edward is confident that
whatever the Bible really teaches is right. He dedicates a year of his life to
a systematic study of Hell – and his life will never be the same.
As Fudge immerses himself in research, other aspects of his life begin to
crumble. Leaders of his own denomination attack him for suggesting that members
of other churches can be saved.
His own congregation – people he loves and serves – fires him after he invites
a black man to pray from the podium. The publishing company he has worked for
since childhood terminates his employment because he refuses to recant his
liberal positions.
He becomes so committed to his research that his relationship with his wife and
children begins to suffer. And, most importantly, in the course of his
investigation some of his core beliefs about God and judgment and eternity are
shaken from their foundations. Ultimately, Fudge emerges as a defender of faith
and Scripture, and a champion for God's love.
Today Edward Fudge is remembered as a well-respected author, lecturer, and
theologian. The book that resulted from his research, The Fire That Consumes, is
a compelling study on the subject of Hell and eternal torment. It stands as a
testimony to a man who had the courage to search for truth and to share what he
found no matter what the cost.
Viewer Comments
"A movie that every individual on planet earth needs to see!" B.O., TX
"For Edward, the driving question is "What is God's character? This movie sounds this theme over and over. Great production!" B.F., TX
"What an incredible movie! I loved the style; the way the movie showed his struggle in a personal dialogue with the 'documentor.' Absolutely wonderful... It inspires me to dig deeper in the Bible and to stand firm for my views. I think it would be a great inspiration to the church, especially teenagers and college students." S.B., IL
"Fantastic - humor mixed with truth plus excellent acting!" K.M., CA
"God's grace came out Loud and Clear! The subject or 'Hell' faded in the light of God's Grace. Most powerful!" T.A., CA
"I was raised in the — church, and even as a child I couldn’t understand how a God of love could torment people for eternity. You’ve confirmed my childhood beliefs and I can hardly wait for my friends and family to see this!" CA
"We loved the film. It is funny, maddening, innocently romantic, spiritually inspiring, and God-honoring. It tells how a young preacher chose to follow the truth of Scripture wherever it led him; and, how -- though he was repeatedly 'wounded in the house of his friends'-- he came through it all without being consumed by bitterness, or forsaking his call to proclaim God's Word... Edward's scholarship is impeccable, and his character Christlike." Tom Warner, ID
Hell and Mr. Fudge is a brilliant little film, smartly directed, that tackles an issue facing every person of faith. I can't think of a topic that has more at stake. Hell and Mr. Fudge brings you into the eye of the storm. The writing is evocative. The acting is first rate and the impact is profound." Martin Doblmeier, President, Journey Films
“Hell and Mr. Fudge tells us something, and in a compelling way, about both hell and Edward Fudge. But it also vividly depicts the dark fire of stubborn self-righteousness in the face of even good news, as well as the bright strength of loyal friends and family." John Stackhouse, Professor of Theology, Regent College
"Hell and Mr. Fudge is a riveting piece of cinema.” Christian Film Guide
"Itʼs a heart-warming tale about standing up for your beliefs in the face of ardent opposition...” 303 Magazine
"Hell and Mr. Fudge debunks a common biblical misconception in a way that entertains while it enlightens – a novel way to reach minds and, more important, hearts.”
Luke 23:43 - Where does the comma go?
Below, quotes from several Greek sources, in transliteration and providing an English translation.
---
(Note> If you know other resources of this kind, please complete the list. Thank you in advance!)
According to "Understanding and Translating 'Today' in Luke 23.43" by J. Hong (published in "The Bible Translator", Vol. 46, 1995, pp. 408-417), for the punctuation marks in Luke 23:43, three possibilities have been offered: to put a comma before the word "today," to put it after "today," or to put a comma both before and after "today."
Occasionally, early Greek manuscripts had some punctuation, this it is found in some MSS, and this is the case here, where B (the Vatican 1209) has a lower point ((hypostigme) after semeron.
According to A. T. Robertson, "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament," Nashville, 1934, p. 242, regarding the punctuation used by this MS, it was noted that in general "B has the higher point as a period, the lower point for a shorter pause."
The ink of the uncial letters in codex B was at one time a faded brown color, and in a later century a scribe traced over many of the letters and punctuation marks.
However, in Luke 23:43 the ink of the lower point is the same as the letters of the text, and thus it can be traced back to the fourth century C.E.
The Vatican 1209 uses punctuation marks also in other places. Thus, at Romans 8:5, ABCL and 26 cursives have a point after sarka.
Exists any MS that displays some kind of punctuation in Luke 23:43, or in meaning is the same, as in the Vatican 1209?
Yes, according to F. C. Burkitt, "The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels" (Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904), The Curetonian Syriac (fifth century C.E.) renders Luke 23:43:
"Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.'"
Tines men
houtos anaginoskousin* _Amen lego soi semeron*_ kai hypostizousin* eita
epipherousin, hotiet' emou ese e to paradeiso._
("Some indeed read this way: 'Truly I tell you today,' and put a comma;
then they add: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'") --Hesychius
of Jerusalem, an ecclessiastical writer who died about 434 C.E. Greek
text found in Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 93, columns 432, 1433.
Alloi de ekbiazontai to rhema, stizontes eis to <<Semeron,>> hin' e to legomenon toiouton* <<Amen ego soi semeron*>> eita to, <<met' emou ese en to paradeiso,>> epipherontes. ("But others press upon the saying, putting a punctuation mark after 'today,' so that it would be said this way: 'Truly I tell you today'; and then they add the expression: 'You will be with me in Paradise.'")
--Theophylact, an ecclessistical writer who died about 1112 C.E. Edition:
Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 123, column 1104.
alloi -- to
rheton ekbiazontai* legousin gar dein hypostizontas (254: hypostizantas)
anaginoskein* amen lego soi semeron*>> eith' houtos epipherein to* met'
emou ese etc. ("Others press upon what is spoken; for they say it must
read by putting a comma thus: 'Truly I tell you today,' and then adding the
expression this way: 'You will be with me'
etc.")
--Scholia 237, 239, 254. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava
critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke 23:43.
kai eutys eipen moi hoti amen amen semeron lego soi, met' emou ese en to parad[eiso].
("And immediately he said to me: 'Most truly today I tell you, You will be
with me in Paradise.'")
--Descent into Hades, an apocryphal writing of the fourth century C.E. Text
found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava critica maior, by C.
Tischendorf, Vol.I, Leipzig,869, under Luke 23:43.
ho de eipen auto* semeron lego soi aletheian hina se ekho eis ton parad[eison] met' emou.
("And he said to him: 'Today I tell you the truth, that I should have you
in Paradise with me.'")
--Gospel of Nicodemus (=Acts of Pilate) b287, an apocryphal writing of the
fourth or fifth century C.E. Text found in Novum Testamentum Graece, editio
octava critica maior, by C. Tischendorf, Vol. I, Leipzig, 1869, under Luke
23:43.
Therefore,
at least from the fourth century C.E. until well into the twelfth century C.E.
there were readers who understood the text at Luke 23:43 as "Truly I tell
you today, You will be with me in Paradise."
On that very day, when Jesus died, he was in Sheol or Hades, and not in
Paradise. (Psalms 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-32) He was dead and in the tomb until the
third day and was then resurrected as "the firstfruits" of the
resurrection. (Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Colossians 1:18)
Thus, the word "today" at Luke 23:43 does not give the time of the
evildoer's being with Jesus in Paradise.
By John Albu, USA
---
About baptism by immersion in water, the biblical version
(Text taken from the Romanian Non-Trinitarian Adventist Church member)
Does the baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28: 19VDC) contain the words of the Lord Jesus Christ or is it a later change, as we see from the controversy of Bishop Cyprian with Pope Stephen (third century) and the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea? , Afraates the Syrian (4th century) and Pope Pelagius (5th century) and the annals of the Inquisition against the baptism in the Celtic Church (11th-11th centuries)?
The evangelist Luke renders the sending of the Lord Jesus Christ differently from Matthew 28:19. See Luke 24:47:
"And repentance and remission of sins, from Jerusalem, shall be preached in all the nations for his name's sake."
Matthew 28:19 should normally harmonize with the text in Luke 24:47, but we see a completely different presentation. It's striking to the eye.
Another point to note is that the Apostles never practiced baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In every case in the Bible, when they baptized the Apostles, in all the places where they walked, they baptized all only in the Name of Jesus Christ. Here is the list of Bible evidence: Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19: 5, Romans 6: 3-5, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 3:17.
All this shows that in the first translation of the Gospel according to the original Hebrew Matthew into the original Greek text (koine), the Lord Jesus Christ sent His disciples as follows: Go and make disciples of all nations and be baptized in My Name (En to onomati Moa ).
How can all Neo-Protestant Christianity, including Jehovah's Witnesses, be guided by a single isolated text? And they ignored a list of Bible texts that concretely show that baptism by immersion must be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
THE MEANING OF BAPTISM
The act of baptism by immersing ourselves in water actually means that we identify with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection. And baptism by immersion is a symbol of the death of Jesus Christ. Romans 6: 3-5 For this reason we cannot be baptized in the name of the Father, who is eternally alive and immortal, for it is blasphemous to God, Jehovah, to use the symbol of death in his name.
We cannot be baptized in the Name of the Holy Spirit either, for the Holy Spirit has no Name! And the Holy Spirit is not someone's name! The Spirit is a title, and the Holy is an attribute. Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, appeared in the midst of his disciples and said, "Peace be with you." As my Father sent me, so I send you. After this, Christ breathed on them through his mouth, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit! John 20: 21-22 The original PNEUMA EKPNEO appears here in verse 22. So it is clear that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of Jesus Christ, as is an attribute of God to the Father, who sent it.
Moreover, several Catholic authors, one being Joseph Ratzinger, stated in their books that the Trinitarian baptism was developed by the Roman Catholic Church, but the 1st century Christian Church, which was born in Jerusalem, practiced the baptism. by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ.
If we have understood biblical baptism, then the baptism with which we were baptized in the formula of Trinitarian baptism is not valid, brethren. We must be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ if we want to be His Church (and not a church of the people).
Amen!
---
The real text of Matthew 28:18,19 was changed
18
And Jesus, approaching, spoke unto them, saying, All authority was given to me
in heaven and on earth. As my Father sent me, I also send you:
19 Go and make disciples of all nations in my name,
20 Teaching them to keep all that I have commanded you! And, behold, I am with
you all the days, unto the end of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other notes:
The text of the Shem Tob version omit "in Galilee", which shows that at origin, the angel did not refer to walking in Galilee, but only promised a meeting with Jesus. Then, Christ remembers Galilee (Matthew 28:10), but it is rather a sort of walking, a sort of going to a common meeting. Unfortunately, the early translators of the Hebrew autograph or Aramaic translation, who translated the Hebrew or Aramaic text at that time, did not understand what the reference is, and for this reason we now have texts in Matthew 28 which contradict the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Luke 24:49, according to which the disciples they had to stay in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
In the Aramaic text of Matthew 28:18 exist the phrase "As my Father hath
sent me, I also send you”, deleted later or ommitted from the Greek
translation, tipical for trinitarian and other heretic scribes. This was noto an isolated case, but habitual, they deleted,
canged or mixed the text for doctrinal reasons.
The verse in Matthew 28:19 is taken in accordance with the Bible of the erudite
bishop Lucian of Antioch (Christian martyr who lived in the third-fourth
century), inherited by his disciple Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea and quoted
before the Council of Nicea. Eusebius of Cesarea and Aprahates, two bishops at
the Council of Nicaea in 325, quotes this verse differently.
A real concern: We have a changed text!
What Christians should see is that all those who were baptized in the formula "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are actually baptized according to the (invented) model of the Roman Catholic Church and not a practice of the Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church is a more moderate branch of early Gnostic trends.
And who has the "model" (prototype) can claim the product as his.
Cardinal Jesuit Augustin Bea, tacitly warned:
"The Pope is the "father of all believers", and for the evangelical believers who have valid baptism, only a love-loving return in the mother church is required." (O. Markmann, Irrtümer der katholischen Kirche, p. 22).
What does "valid baptism" mean in the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church? The one in the name of the "Holy Trinity".
Here's a small quote that explains everything:
"Thus, Pope John XIII in 1962 convened an Ecumenical Council II at the Vatican and told both the present Catholic body and the Protestant leaders to unite their cults with Rome (which happened in a vague way). The following formula was used: "You could join us because you have our baptism."
The missing pages:
This is another argument in support of the hypothesis of falsification.
"In the only Codice (version) in which we would have kept an older version, namely the Sinaitic Syrian version and in the oldest Latin manuscript, the pages containing the end of Matthew are missing." (F.C. Conybeare).
Unfortunately, the same fate had the Gothic Bible of the Bishop of the Goths, Wulfila, as long as it was preserved from it, it does not contain the last chapter of Matthew, and as the first of John would have expected. Who made these pages disappear from old codices and why?
“As my Father sent me, so send I you”
Another great omision, another argument for support the hypothesis of falsification.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. As my Father sent me, so send I you (the Aramaic text, omitted from the Greek):
19 Go and make disciples of all nations, (the Hebrew version, the Greek version including and "baptizing" them) in my name (This kind of verse is taken according to the old Hebrew edition quoted by Rabbi Shem Tob of fourteenth-century Spain), and from the Bible of the non-Trinitarian bishop the scholar Lucian of Antioch (Christian martyr who lived in the III-IV century). This was inherited by his disciple Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, and quoted before the Council of Nicaea Eusebius of Caesarea and Aprahates of Syria, two bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but others also quote this verse differently from what we have today.),
20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And,
behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
The Christian Ordinances, Chapter X,
Origin of the Trine Immersion:
This contains a very interesting historical note on Matthew 28:19.
One of the authors who wrote about the transformation of the text in Matthew
28:19 is the Baptist Christian Henry
Forney (1829-1926). He wrote The History of the Church of God in the
United States (1914). In 1883 he wrote The
Christian Ordinances, and in Chapter
X appears Origin of the Trine
Immersion. He and other authors say that the "long baptismal
formula" is a change from the original baptism that was performed only in
the name of the Lord Jesus and that it spread from Asia to Africa and Europe.
Until then, it was not known until after a certain Christian of Sicilian
origin, Pantaneus, brought it from his Asian tour to Alexandria (Cairo,
Africa), where he had settled. Here he formed a Christian school, from where
this form of baptism spread further.
Pantaneus excelled in the
struggle against Gnosticism, but it can be seen that in some respects he was
influenced by them. That is, it was contaminated, it was gnosticized to some
extent.
Gnostics were the first trinitarians.
From here, from this school, the third baptism spread to North Africa and
Europe, not with little resistance, the bishop Stephen of Rome (third century)
agreeing with those who baptized only in the name of Jesus. The third baptism
was greatly encouraged by Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, North Africa. The last
more compact and annotated resistance of history was given by the Western
European Christian Church in the sixth century, which still opposed triple
baptism, but in some places it survived even after that time, such as in the
Irish and British Church (UK). The Pope of Rome, Pelagius (VI century),
complained that there were still many Christians who were baptized only in the
name of the Lord Jesus.
A significant number of scholars today admit that the original baptism was only in the name of the Lord Jesus. Yet why do we not have at least one biblical copy of this form other than a 14th-century manuscript? Take a close look at the images of the Inquisition, where the old Bibles were burned with their owners, and you can answer for yourself.
Statements of history and historians:
The most important historical sources confirm that
the Christian church did not use a threefold name as a baptismal formula but
invoked the Name of Jesus until the third century. Encyclopedia of Religions
and Ethics (1951) vol. II, pp. 384, 389:
The formula used was "in the name of Jesus
Christ" or phrases synonymous with it; there is no testimony regarding the
three name… The earliest form, represented in the Acts of the Apostles, was the
simple immersion in water, the use of the Name of Jesus and the laying on of
hands. To these was added, in a time that cannot be established exactly, the
thee name (Justin)”.
Explanatory Bible Dictionary (1962), vol. I, p.
351: "Evidence… Suggests that baptism in early Christianity was
administered, not in the triune name, but in the Name of Jesus Christ or in the
Name of the Lord Jesus."
Otto Heick, a renowned Christian historian (1947),
p. 58: "The Trinitarian formula of baptism" took the place of the old
formula of baptism "in the name of Jesus."
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898), vol. I,
p. 241: "The original name of the words was" in the name of Jesus
Christ "or" the Lord Jesus." Baptism in the name of the Trinity
was a subsequent change."
Williston Walker, a Christian Church Historian
(1947), p. 58 The Trinitarian Baptism Formula" Took the place of the Old
Baptism „in the Name of Christ"
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament testifies only to the baptism
in the Name of Jesus… which was practiced until the third century"
Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), p. 53:
"People were first baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in
the name of the Lord Jesus." and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is
only normal to conclude that baptism was originally administered" in the
name of Jesus Christ, "or" in the name of the Lord Jesus. "This
view is confirmed by the fact that the early forms of baptismal witness were singular
and not tripled, as was the later belief.
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365:
The Trinitarian formula and diving three times was not a uniform practice from
the beginning… Baptism in the Name of Jesus is the New Testament formula. In the
third century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope
Stephen declared it valid, opposing Cyprian of Carthage.
A brief reconstruction of what happened:
In the first and second centuries, a
pseudo-Christian Jewish sect with Gnostic tendencies developed, called
"Nazoreans" or "Nazarenes". In fact, they came to
Christianity from a Jewish sect of the same name, close to the Essene ideas.
When they became Christians, they came up with their own ideas, unifying their
ideas with those of the Christians. They had an apocryphal gospel, called the
Gospel of the Nazarenes or the Gospel of the Jews. It was a harmony of the four
existing gospels, a kind of compilation of them, which included the specific
doctrines of this heretical group. Outside of Judea, they were also known as
encratites. They rejected the writings of the apostle Paul althogether. They
did not eat meat, did not marry, did not drink wine, believed in the doctrine
of the trinity and immortality of souls, and practiced triple baptism. From
this syncretistic gospel the idea of threefold baptism spread to Rome,
through Justin the Martyr, and to the Middle East through Tatian, to
northwestern India. Justin and Tatian were the promoters of this sect.
Pantaneus of Alexandria, Egypt, an eminent Christian, former Stoic philosopher,
was called by anxious leaders from Antioch and sent on a mediation tour with
Gnostic sects or a tendency toward Gnosticism to return them from wandering
back to church values. He succeeded in part, but in part he allowed himself to
be contaminated by this group of Nazarenes and brought back to Alexandria
certain doctrines of the above-mentioned group, such as the immortality of
souls, the trinity, and the threefold baptism. From here it spread throughout North
Africa, and especially to Carthage, which became a bastion and outpost of these
doctrines to Europe.
In
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Christians today should use the
baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.
---
---
The Second Theos in John 1.1 problem
The Greek language also has unique characteristics that are difficult to understand in a translation into another language. At the beginning of the 3rd century there were already translations of the New Testament in the dialects of the Coptic language. This is because the Copts are descendants of the ancient Egyptians, Alexander the Great and his descendants brought Egypt into the Greek culture. Thus the leaders of the Coptic church could very well know the usual "koine" dialect of Greek - that of the people - spoken at that time.
In the old Coptic dialect we have roughly "and the word was like God" in John 1:1.
"The Word was a god" (or "The Word was God")" is not the best
translations.
In greek grammar there is the use of the anarthrous predicate
nominative. In the
Journal of Biblical literature VOl. 92, 1973 by Philip Harner on p.
84, 85 gives all possible translations of John 1:1 in greek. Then he
goes on to say how they are translated.... You can see in your
interlinear of the Christian
Grek Scriptures that the Bible holds the wording of the option B).
If it were written as kai ho logos en theos (option D) would be
translated the word was a god. But the Scriptures hold other wise.
In light of this examination of John's usage we may turn to the
verse in which we are especially interested, 1:1. Our study so far
suggests that the anarthrous predicate in this verse has primarily a
qualitative significance and that it would be definite only if there
is some specific indication of definiteness in the meaning or
context. As an aid in understanding the verse it will be helpful to
ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In
terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it
would appear that John could have written any of the following:
A.[ho logos en ho theos]
B.[theos en ho logos]
C.[ho logos theos en]
D.[ho logos en theos]
E.[ho logos en theios] [24]
Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and
theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos
which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would
contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that
[ho logos en pros ton theon: the word was with the god. This clause
suggests relationship, and thus some
form of "personal" differentiation, between the two. Clause D, with
the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that
the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to
the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho
theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean
that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way
or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos,
being only theios, was subordinate to theos.
John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was
other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an
anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative
in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.
There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.
This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then
contradict the preceding clause of 1:1.
As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and
differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or
C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos.
Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in
emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else)
had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature of
theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that
John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for
emphasis.
Commentators on the Fourth Gospel, as far as I know, have not
specifically approached the meaning of this clause from the
standpoint of the qualitative force of theos as an anarthrous
predicate preceding the verb. In many cases their interpretations
agree with the explanation that is given above. But consideration of
the qualitative meaning of theos would lend further clarification and
support to their understanding of the clause. J. H. Bernard, for
example, points out that Codex L [9th century A. D.] reads ho theos
instead of theos. "But this," he continues, "would identify the
Logos with the totality of divine existence, and would contradict the
preceding clause."[25] In a similar way W. F. Howard writes that
theos and ho logos are not interchangeable. Otherwise, he
continues, "the writer could not say "the Word was with
God.""[26]
Both writers, in effect, are arguing that the predicate theos cannot
be regarded as definite in this clause. In terms of our analysis
above this would mean that clause B should not be assimilated to
clause A.
Bruce Vawter explains the meaning of the clause succinctly and
lucidly: "The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he
has already been distinguished from another divine Person."[27]
But in terms of our analysis it is important that we understand the
phrase "the Word is divine" as an attempt to represent the meaning of
clause B rather than D or E. Undoubtedly Vawter means that the Word
is "divine" in the same sense that ho theos is divine. But the
English language is not as versatile at this point as Greek, and we
can avoid misunderstanding the English phrase only if we are aware of
the particular force of the Greek expression that it represents.
For Captain Nemo *** 2024. (13848)
Read more on
https://bibletopicsa.blogspot.com
Comments
Post a Comment