PDA

View Full Version : Hebrew Gospel of Matthew



Stefen
Feb 24th 2008, 02:31 PM
There has been much talk about Shem Tov's Hebew Gospel of Matthew. It supposedly proves that Matthew was wriiten in Hebrew and it also has a few different details then the greek version. Jesus' jewishness is very fragrant in this Gospel. I have personally read it and researched it, it is an amazing book.

Have any of you read or heard about it.

diffangle
Feb 24th 2008, 02:39 PM
There has been much talk about Shem Tov's Hebew Gospel of Matthew. It supposedly proves that Matthew was wriiten in Hebrew and it also has a few different details then the greek version. Jesus' jewishness is very fragrant in this Gospel. I have personally read it and researched it, it is an amazing book.

Have any of you read or heard about it.
I haven't read it but I did consider getting it a couple of years ago... if I remember correctly, it wasn't written until the 1200's(I think),maybe later, which if that's the case then I don't see how one can claim that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Did you find proof of the original Matthew being written in Hebrew?

ShirleyFord
Feb 24th 2008, 02:50 PM
There has been much talk about Shem Tov's Hebew Gospel of Matthew. It supposedly proves that Matthew was wriiten in Hebrew and it also has a few different details then the greek version. Jesus' jewishness is very fragrant in this Gospel. I have personally read it and researched it, it is an amazing book.

Have any of you read or heard about it.

I'm not familiar with this writing. But from the little you write here, it sounds like this author is implying that there is more than one gospel and that Jesus is only shown to be a Jew in his version of Matthew's account.

Scripture speaks of only One gospel preached during the OT era and through the NT era.

Throughout the NT from Matthew through Revelation, Jesus as a full-bloodied Jew, physical descendent of Abraham according to His flesh, is clearly taught.


Shirley

Clifton
Feb 24th 2008, 03:18 PM
I have not the book, but would like to have it someday. I have extracted some quoted snippets from the Internet and put them in the notes of my Bible Software. I found support for something I was stating in the USENET a few years ago in regards to Matthew 24:37-41… it will be like in the days of Noah – the wicked are taken and the righteous are left behind to care for the Earth:

I understand that Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew reads for 24:40-41:

40 Then if there shall be two ploughing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the one will be taken and the other left.
41 Two women will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the other left. This is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil.

As can be seen, Shem-Tov interpolates an explanation which stipulates who the two are (one is righteous, the other evil [the Greek text makes no such identification]), and gives a new—and inconsistent—definition of "stumbling blocks:" they are the evil people who will be removed (the parallelism of v. 40 in Shem-Tov suggests—and standard understanding is—that it is the good who will be "taken" [to heaven] and the evil who will be "left;" but Shem-Tov’s v. 41 states that it is the evil who will be "taken," presumably leaving the good here!).

This makes better sense with the context of Matthew 24:37-41 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&chapter=24) (UPDV 16:35-39 (http://read.updated.org/bible/Mt/16/)). In Re of the Flood, the wicked were taken away from the earth, and Noah and family (protected in the Ark) were left behind to tend to the Earth and begin anew.

For users that would like to see some snippets from the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, do a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hebrew+Gospel+of+Matthew%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) for "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew".

Clifton
Feb 24th 2008, 05:21 PM
I haven't read it but I did consider getting it a couple of years ago... if I remember correctly, it wasn't written until the 1200's(I think),maybe later, which if that's the case then I don't see how one can claim that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Did you find proof of the original Matthew being written in Hebrew?

One of the feedbacks an Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865549893) Customer wrote:

Some background may be useful here. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate around 400 A.D., who is considered the greatest Hebrew scholar of the late Roman Imperial age, wrote the following in his De Viris Illustribus (Of Illustrious Men):

"Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library. at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me bythe Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son, " and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

It is apparently unknown whether this Hebrew Matthew is the original of which Jerome wrote, but the possibility exists that this is the earliest Gospel of all. Considering the close relation of Hebrew to Aramaic, the language would in that case be the closest to Jesus' own.
*END OF QUOTE*

Also, as I recall, Eusebius expressed something about Matthew being in Hebrew. But I am not sure which of his works states this. I do have a couple of Eusebius' works.

Stefen
Feb 24th 2008, 09:46 PM
I haven't read it but I did consider getting it a couple of years ago... if I remember correctly, it wasn't written until the 1200's(I think),maybe later, which if that's the case then I don't see how one can claim that the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Did you find proof of the original Matthew being written in Hebrew?

They are saying that it was copied from copies of the original book of matthew that they believe was written in Hebrew. They also believe that the original hebrew was copied into aramaic and then into greek, and that is where we get our translation. There are also a ton of word puns that give it more credibility than the greek.

Stefen
Feb 24th 2008, 09:47 PM
I'm not familiar with this writing. But from the little you write here, it sounds like this author is implying that there is more than one gospel and that Jesus is only shown to be a Jew in his version of Matthew's account.

Scripture speaks of only One gospel preached during the OT era and through the NT era.

Throughout the NT from Matthew through Revelation, Jesus as a full-bloodied Jew, physical descendent of Abraham according to His flesh, is clearly taught.


Shirley

I don't think I understand what you are saying??

Clifton
Feb 25th 2008, 03:11 AM
Also, as I recall, Eusebius expressed something about Matthew being in Hebrew. But I am not sure which of his works states this. I do have a couple of Eusebius' works.

Here we go… from Eusebius, Church History, Book V (Emphasis Mine):

CHAPTER 8

The Statements of Irenaeus in regard to the Divine Scriptures

Since, in the beginning of this work, we promised to give, when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenaeus was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels: "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia."

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2008, 03:16 AM
I've heard that a lot of the sayins of Jesus make a lot more sense in Hebrew, than they do in Greek, in this version of the Gospel of Matthew.

But. . . I've yet to read it.

danield
Feb 25th 2008, 03:47 AM
I just wanted to chime in to say that I really appreciate you guys posting on a new interesting book to check out. I wish we had a good book forum that discussed peoples review of the more popular christian books on the market. I know we have a thread started on anything goes, but it is hard to sort through the thread to check new stuff. Anyway thanks a ton for making me aware of this publication!!!

Athanasius
Feb 25th 2008, 03:49 AM
I just wanted to chime in to say that I really appreciate you guys posting on a new interesting book to check out. I wish we had a good book forum that discussed peoples review of the more popular christian books on the market. I know we have a thread started on anything goes, but it is hard to sort through the thread to check new stuff. Anyway thanks a ton for making me aware of this publication!!!

Then you might be interested in checking out 'Jesus the Jewish Theologian'
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Theologian-Brad-Young/dp/1565630602

Stefen
Feb 25th 2008, 04:01 AM
I've heard that a lot of the sayins of Jesus make a lot more sense in Hebrew, than they do in Greek, in this version of the Gospel of Matthew.

But. . . I've yet to read it.

They really do. Everything Jesus says in the Hebrew version makes you go... oh. Another thing, when Jesus quotes the old testament in the Greek he paraphrases but in the Hebrew he quotes the OT word for word.

Stefen
Feb 25th 2008, 04:03 AM
Here is the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew," but only every other page is there because they want you to purchase it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEBdVXg3AC&dq=hebrew+gospel+of+matthew&pg=PP1&ots=QBvz9VHhsk&sig=bGlOERZVE_Tgg0g649QYmWG6oxw&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=hebrew+gospel+of+matthew&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

Clifton
Feb 25th 2008, 04:10 AM
I'm not familiar with this writing. But from the little you write here, it sounds like this author is implying that there is more than one gospel and that Jesus is only shown to be a Jew in his version of Matthew's account.

Scripture speaks of only One gospel preached during the OT era and through the NT era.

Throughout the NT from Matthew through Revelation, Jesus as a full-bloodied Jew, physical descendent of Abraham according to His flesh, is clearly taught.


Shirley


I think don't believe he implied that Jesus was not a Jew in the Greek scriptures, but in the Hebrew Gospel (Shem-Tov, which is the more recent of three that has come about in the past several centuries), His jewishness is "very fragrant" in Shem-Tov. Would probably have been the same if the other gospels were penned in Hebrew. The second release of this text came out in the later 1990's (1995-1998).

I have seen several snippets and have read a lot about it. As far as I know, there are no early 1st Century "doctrinal" differences between it and the Greek editions. Now, later and beyond the 1st Century? Well... that is a different thing, and heads are bashing foreheads to foreheads.

Stefen
Feb 25th 2008, 04:17 AM
One thing I noticed that the hebrew translation differs in from the greek is regarding oaths or promises.

In the Greek Jesus says not to makes oaths at all but in the hebrew it says not to make any vain of false oaths. The greek make more since because Jesus says "You have heard that it is said "Do not swear by my name falsely," but I say to you do do not swear in vain (falsely) at all." This is more consistent with the rest of the sermon on the mount because the pharisees would take God's law and legalize it so they could get away with things, for example lying. The pharisees believed that they could break an oath as long as they didn't do it in God's name, but Jesus said no, it goes beyond that, it is a matter of the heart. This is the main point of Jesus sermon on the mount.

Merton
Feb 25th 2008, 09:57 AM
Stefen,



66 books in the Bible.

If Matthew Mark and Luke are the finishing chapters of the OT, (they describe the ending of the old and the bringing in of the new) then that makes 42 books (7x6) plus 24 books (2x 12) starting with the book of the Spirit of the gospel of John, finishing with the Revelation of Jesus Christ (the last book).

(The 24 elders)

Just a thought.

Merton.

music4two
Mar 5th 2008, 07:33 PM
There is overwhelming evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and not Greek. Church fathers spoke of this often.

Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
Origen (210 CE) - The first gospel is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew
Isho'dad (850 CE) - His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.

The text itself screams Hebrew origins. There are many idioms used in the text that do not make sense in Greek or English but when understood from a Hebrew perspective are completely clear.

Let’s look at one Hebrew word. It is translated into English as “name”.

“When we see a name such as "King David" we see the word "King" as a title and "David" as a name. In our western mind a title describes a character trait while a name is simply an identifier. In the Hebrew language there is no such distinction between names and titles. Both words, King and David, are descriptions of character traits, King is "one who reigns" while David is "one who is loved". It is also common to identify the word "Elohiym" (God) as a title and YHWH (Yahweh, the LORD, Jehovah) as a name. What we do not realize is that both of these are character traits, YHWH meaning "the one who exists" and Elohiym is "one who has power and authority". The Hebrew word "shem" more literally means "character". When the Bible speaks of taking God's name to the nations, he is not talking about the name itself but his character. When the command to not take God's name in vain literally means not to represent his character in a false manner. It is similar to our expression of "having a good name" which is not about the name itself but the character of the one with that name.”--- Curtesy of Jeff Benner of The Ancient Hebrew Research Center. –

This understanding is also carried on through the NT. The Jews of Christ time recognized that Jesus came in the character of God He displayed the motives and intentions of God for this reason they shouted out the following –
Mark 11:9?Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting:"Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME (character) OF THE LORD;
Many times Christ says he comes in his Father’s name/character. This is why the pharasees hated him. They were shown up by this man displaying the character they were supposed to have in them.
In John 10 Jesus uses a quote from Psalm 82 and rebukes the leaders for not being “Gods” to the people of Israel. They were not displaying the character of God to the people.
Most churches today use the name of Jesus as a magic montra to insure that a prayer is answered. Then lose faith in God because it is not answered. This is not what it means to pray in Jesus’ name. It means to have the same character as Jesus when we pray.
When we pray outside of the character of Christ we fulfill this verse –
James 4
3You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

When we pray within the character of Christ (which is the character of God) we get this.
John 15:16?" You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name/character He may give to you.

Jesus went on to tell the disciples to immerse the people in the character of God
With this in mind let’s look at Matthew from a Hebrew perspective.
Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

First let’s define some of the key words from a Hebrew perspective.

Disciple = Follower
Name = Character trait
Father = He who gives strength to the family.
Son = offspring who is like the father
Holy = Set aside for a special purpose
Spirit = breath/ source of life
Baptize = immerse (Gr)

With these understandings in place look at the verse again.

Go therefore and make followers of all the nations, immersing them in the character traits of the one who gives strength to the family and of his offspring who is like Him and of the special breath which is set asside for the purpose of being the source of continual life.

The “Great Commission” is neither a proof text for a doctrine nor even a complete water baptism verse. Water baptism is only a shadow of the deeper emersion we are to have in the Character of God as shown through His son Jesus.

There are those that say “Where are the Hebrew original manuscripts?” My response is “Where are the original manuscripts in Greek?”
Assuming I am right, there would be comparitively few copies of the original Hebrew due to the small number of it's readers, while the Greek copies would be much more prolific because of the worldwide use. Archeological discoveries in the last 50 years (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) have proven conclusively that Hebrew was a viable and common language in Israel during the gospel period.
The textural evidence is overwhelming. From the style of paralalism indicative of Hebrew writing to the style of parable teaching to the use of idioms exclusive to Hebrew language, The work screams Hebrew origins.

The testimony of the church fathers is good evidence. Some of these church fathers are quoted from periods that predate the vast majority of manuscripts used to prove a Greek origin.
From a simple functional standpoint, the gospel of Matthew was written prior to the spreading of the good news to the Gentiles. There was no need to write it outside of his home language, Hebrew.

Unfortunately most evangelical references have not caught up to these facts. Most reference works today are simply copies (with a small amount of editing) of work done in the 1800s.
Hebrew thinking is totally different then Western thinking and most that have grown up believing a Greek origin are unable to make the switch. Many throw up walls against it not because the proof is lacking but because of a pride issue. Some will refuse to accept it for fear that all the study they have done based on Greek will be in vane.

Stefen
Mar 5th 2008, 08:29 PM
Some will refuse to accept it for fear that all the study they have done based on Greek will be in vane.

All of the study of the greek is much more clear now with the hebrew.

Clifton
Mar 6th 2008, 12:30 AM
There is overwhelming evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and not Greek. Church fathers spoke of this often.

Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
Origen (210 CE) - The first gospel is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew
Isho'dad (850 CE) - His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.
Mercy, learn something new here every week I guess - I was not aware that Epiphanius vouched for the Gospel Of Matthew being written in Hebrew. As for Isho'dad, I do not recall having heard this name. I understand that Matthew was first written in Hebrew for the Jews.


Jesus went on to tell the disciples to immerse the people in the character of God
Yep! Unfortunately, Latin-Roman theological practices has changed the text - but actually, in Greek, the characteristics is there.


With this in mind let’s look at Matthew from a Hebrew perspective.

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

First let’s define some of the key words from a Hebrew perspective.

Disciple = Follower
Name = Character trait
Father = He who gives strength to the family.
Son = offspring who is like the father
Holy = Set aside for a special purpose
Spirit = breath/ source of life
Baptize = immerse (Gr)

With these understandings in place look at the verse again.

Go therefore and make followers of all the nations, immersing them in the character traits of the one who gives strength to the family and of his offspring who is like Him and of the special breath which is set asside for the purpose of being the source of continual life.

The “Great Commission” is neither a proof text for a doctrine nor even a complete water baptism verse. Water baptism is only a shadow of the deeper immersion we are to have in the Character of God as shown through His son Jesus.Yea, but some organizations, movements, etc. have taken liberties with this Hebrew Version and it's correlation with the Eusebian quotes, saying, "We have sent countless numbers to hell by 'baptizing' them in the 'wrong name/way' - we urge you to come back and be 're-baptised' correctly in the name of Jesus/Christ before it is too late"!

Do you think that is right?

The striking thing to such nonsense and unwarranted heartbreaks for loved-ones passed away, unnecessary travel, concern, inconvience, etc. to be rebaptize, is that,
#1 - Neither Eusebius nor the Hebrew Matthew of 28:19-20 uses the word "baptism / immersion" at ALL -
#2, even in the Greek, the verb is not in the IMPERATIVE MOOD (a COMMAND) - just "make disciples / teach" is in the IMPERATIVE MOOD - in fact, from what we have for the Greek, Christ never used it (baptiz* / immers*) in the IMPERATIVE MOOD form, for ANY element. That's just a trick by the traditions of men - re: Latin-Roman influences hence where it came from.


There are those that say “Where are the Hebrew original manuscripts?” My response is “Where are the original manuscripts in Greek?”
Assuming I am right, there would be comparitively few copies of the original Hebrew due to the small number of it's readers, while the Greek copies would be much more prolific because of the worldwide use. Archeological discoveries in the last 50 years (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) have proven conclusively that Hebrew was a viable and common language in Israel during the gospel period.
The textural evidence is overwhelming. From the style of paralalism indicative of Hebrew writing to the style of parable teaching to the use of idioms exclusive to Hebrew language, The work screams Hebrew origins.

The testimony of the church fathers is good evidence. Some of these church fathers are quoted from periods that predate the vast majority of manuscripts used to prove a Greek origin.
From a simple functional standpoint, the gospel of Matthew was written prior to the spreading of the good news to the Gentiles. There was no need to write it outside of his home language, Hebrew.

Unfortunately most evangelical references have not caught up to these facts. Most reference works today are simply copies (with a small amount of editing) of work done in the 1800s.
Hebrew thinking is totally different then Western thinking and most that have grown up believing a Greek origin are unable to make the switch. Many throw up walls against it not because the proof is lacking but because of a pride issue. Some will refuse to accept it for fear that all the study they have done based on Greek will be in vane.Well, when we learn Greek we are told at times we need to know history and what Hebrew Idioms might be underlying the Greek to understand it and translate it properly, otherwise, the Greek may fall flat on it's face. I have some translations and a good knowledge of history to help me in that.

Blessings.

music4two
Mar 6th 2008, 04:40 AM
Yea, but some organizations, movements, etc. have taken liberties with this Hebrew Version and it's correlation with the Eusebian quotes, saying, "We have sent countless numbers to hell by 'baptizing' them in the 'wrong name/way' - we urge you to come back and be 're-baptised' correctly in the name of Jesus/Christ before it is too late"!

Do you think that is right?

Blessings.[/QUOTE]

One thing I try to remember is that God judges by the heart. Though I believe that God's types are important, I also believe that God is bigger then our mistakes concerning the method of baptism.

Clifton
Mar 7th 2008, 12:50 AM
All of the study of the greek is much more clear now with the hebrew.


Stefan,

I understand that Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew reads for 24:40-41:

40 Then if there shall be two ploughing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the one will be taken and the other left.
41 Two women will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the other left. This is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil.

Is this so? It appears to correlate better with the analogy of the days of Noah - i.e. the wicked are removed, and the righteous are left behind to attend to the Earth, are transformed Earth.

Thanks in Advance!
Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 15th 2008, 12:16 AM
Yea, but some organizations, movements, etc. have taken liberties with this Hebrew Version and it's correlation with the Eusebian quotes, saying, "We have sent countless numbers to hell by 'baptizing' them in the 'wrong name/way' - we urge you to come back and be 're-baptised' correctly in the name of Jesus/Christ before it is too late"!

Do you think that is right?

Blessings.One thing I try to remember is that God judges by the heart. Though I believe that God's types are important, I also believe that God is bigger then our mistakes concerning the method of baptism.

I agree with you, but my point is that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew nor the quote of Eusebius makes no mention of “baptism / Immersion” in the so-called Great Commission, so my point is that there is no need to terrorize people about “coming back” to be re-baptized – when I first learned about this going on across the Country, I was like, “huh? What’s the difference?”, then later learned they reworked the Greek Version to say “baptizing with water calling upon the name…” instead of “baptizing INTO the name of the Lord” the materialistic lower element of water, the physical, replacing the element of “into the name”, the spiritual;

Let me also note, that even in the Greek Version, that only the “make disciples / teach” is a command (the IMPERATIVE VERB), and the rest in Matthew 28:19-20 is not, including besides “baptizing”, the “teaching them to observe all things”. That makes sense since one might be on the brink of death and only has a moment to call upon the name of the Lord to be saved (Romans 10:13 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=10&verse=13)), and that others may die before they “learn all [things]” and have not been taught everything that Christ commanded. Which brings me to another point, there are no imperative (commands) forms of the Greek βαπτιζο from Christ in regards to “baptizing”, for any element, thus, it is not the commandment of Christ, but of men, thus, which makes sense that the materialistic lower element of water, the physical, replaces the actual text “into the name”, the spiritual for them.

The Great Commission as quoted by Eusebius and is in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew better matches up that in John 20:19-23 (http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=John%2020:19-23) and Luke 24:36-49 (http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Luke%2024:36-49) (which Luke provides us with more text). As for Mark 16:14-18 (http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Mark%2016:14-18), there have been different readings (or none at all) for Christians in the past 19 centuries there.

Blessings.

Clifton
Mar 20th 2008, 08:53 PM
Stefan,

I understand that Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew reads for 24:40-41:

40 Then if there shall be two ploughing in a field, one righteous and the other evil, the one will be taken and the other left.
41 Two women will be grinding at a mill; one will be taken and the other left. This is because the angels at the end of the world will remove the stumbling blocks from the world and will separate the good from the evil.

Is this so? It appears to correlate better with the analogy of the days of Noah - i.e. the wicked are removed, and the righteous are left behind to attend to the Earth, are transformed Earth.

Thanks in Advance!
Blessings.


Doesn't seem I am gonna get an answer from Stefan. Therefore, I want to ask if ANYONE that has the Shem-Tov Hebrew Gospel Of Matthew, can you tell me if 24:40-41 reads as in the above quote? I find it fascinating, but want to know if that is the real reading.

Blessings.

Stefen
Mar 20th 2008, 09:15 PM
Doesn't seem I am gonna get an answer from Stefan. Therefore, I want to ask if ANYONE that has the Shem-Tov Hebrew Gospel Of Matthew, can you tell me if 24:40-41 reads as in the above quote? I find it fascinating, but want to know if that is the real reading.

Blessings.

Hi Clifton sorry I didn't respond sooner. Yes you are correct about matthwe being in line with the days of Noah, the wicked are taken.

Clifton
Mar 21st 2008, 05:18 PM
Hi Clifton sorry I didn't respond sooner. Yes you are correct about matthwe being in line with the days of Noah, the wicked are taken.

Thanks Stefan, I greatly appreciate it.;)

Blessings.