judge

Hi Yuri,
I noitice on the link you provided an another thread that..


Can you explain why you think this gospel seems to be from the first centuries of Christianity?

Thanks

Yuri Kuchinsky

Sure, Judge,

I think Howard's Hebrew Matthew ideed goes back to the early Christian centuries because it's essentially a Jewish-Christian document.

From my perspective, any gospel that contains lots of Jewish-Christian elements has got to be very early... Because all early Christianity was Jewish-Christianity.

Best regards,

Yuri

rexrex4

Hi Yuri,
I went to this link you gave above, then on a link you give there to an introduction of the hebrew Mathew.I found there you gave this link
and found there that the jews you refered to as messianic jews are anti christian jews instead. What is this?

Chris Weimer

Matthew was definitely not a "Jewish-Gospel". Matthew's narrative tells of a Jewish Jesus who taught only to the Jews, but then through a series of polemics and dialogs diverts his message from the Jews to "all nations". Remeber the Samaritan woman whom he called a dog? Here then because of her faith that her daughter was healed. Jesus also goes through a series of reform for Jewish law but ultimately nullifies all laws except "Love the Lord..." and "Love your neighbor..." Furthermore, God being the God of the living (22:32) also further extincts the Old Law, which was of "the dead". Refer here where you failed to respond.

Chris Weimer

Yuri Kuchinsky

Where does it say that they are "anti christian jews"?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Chris,

You fail to distinguish between the last edition of Matthew (i.e. the Hortian 19th century Matthew), and the early versions of Matthew.

You seem to assume that they are the same. But why? On what basis?

I didn't respond there because there was nothing to respond to. You have your opinions, and you keep restating them... When you have some basis for your opinions, rather than just making bald assertions, then I'll respond to that.

Best regards,

Yuri

Chris Weimer

I have no idea what you're talking about. Surely, there is evidence of redaction, but 19th century Hortian? Yuri, my arguement stands even looking at Vaticanus, or any of the Byzantine texts, or D etc... I don't need Westcott and Hort to provide me a text (and indeed, I don't). But the "evidence" is the text itself, and I showed you it here. Matthew stands wholly as a whole gospel, written by one man (opposed to John, distinctly written by at least two). And I did give the basis in the opening paragraph. But speaking of "bald assertions", maybe you should take your own advice and give evidence as well for your positions?

Johann_Kaspar

And in Greek, I am guessing? Are you serious?



If you are then, I will be :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Please, go study this subject... seriously, for I think that some books are missing in your library.

Peter Kirby

Johann, why not contribute and explain what you think? (Instead of just taunting Chris.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

Hrm, let's see if I got my facts straight: you know nothing, so you mock those who do? :down: I'll respond when you actually have something to say.