Baidarka

Theoscholar "I would like to compile all of the "contradictions" in Scripture. I haven't come across one yet compelling enough to disbelieve the integrity of the Word of God.

As time permits, I will refute any serious contenders with reasonal argument."

What happened to Theoscholar?

Amaleq13

He/she isn't dead, I can tell you that. I've seen posts by her/him in threads in other Forums.

MrDarwin

Yes, I wasn't referring only to the death itself, but all the circumstances surrounding it.

But try telling that to somebody who believes the bible is infallible and literally true, and therefore the two stories cannot be contradictory.

Infidelettante

Originally posted by Infidelettante
I can't help but notice that you offer none.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusisgod.htm

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/isJesusGod.htm

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jehovah_is_Jesus.htm

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusquestions.htm

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/100truths.htm

Is that enough? I'm quite confident you'll reject everyone, and claim they mean nothing but can't say I didn't try.

Wow! Five urls in defense of the deity of Jesus. I give up. How can anyone doubt so powerful a collection of web pages.

Btw Magus copy/paste doesn't count as a try in my book. I call it a side step, a cop out, evasion and avoidance. In other words, no you didn't try.

Magus55

Hey, its not like you listen to me anyway, so why take the time to go through every single verse proving Jesus' divinity, when I can just copy and past 5 URLs much much faster? You'll reject them either way. At least this way, I didn't waste too much time when you don't even care.

judge

Hi again Amlodhi!

I have given some more thought to your excellent points.
Firstly I found yet a third translation of the passage from Jerome which seems closer to the one I gave before. I will quote it again.
Matthew -- who was also (called) Levi -- was an apostle and former tax-collector. He first composed the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words in Judea for those from the circumcision who had believed. Who later translated (his gospel) into Greek, is not quite certain. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is still held today in the library at Caesarea (Maritima), which the martyr Pamphilus carefully put together. I also was able to make a copy from the Nazarenes, who use this volume in Beroea, a city in Syria. In it, it is to be noted that whenever the evangelist made full use of testimonies from the ancient scriptures -- either on his own or from the Lord Savior -- he did not follow the authority of Seventy translators [i.e., the Greek Septuagint], but of the Hebrew. These are two (examples) of this: "Out of Egypt I have called my Son" (Matt 2:15) and_ "For he shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). from here....
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/jerome.html

Unfortunately Jerome here only provides two examples of the many OT quotes in Matthew. At times in the version we have today Matthew agrees with the LXX and at times with todays Hebrew.
In the first example I believe it does agree with the hebrew against the LXX. Interestingly in the second it does not agree with the hebrew we use today! Asfar as I am aware no extant hebrew version contains this phrase "he shall be called a nazarene."

Was Jerome using a hebrew version now lost. Did this phrase become lost from Jewish versions in a "standardisation" of texts?

How did the Matthew that Jerome writes of read in the portions where todays Matthew is closer to the LXX?
Curiously Jreome mentions none of these portions. This may indicate he was pushing his own agenda to use the hebrew as a basis for translation inot Latin.
I suspest the Matthew he refers to is the peshitta Matthew which at times is closer to the LXX at other times to the hebrew and at other times clearly neither.

Hope this helps

Infidelettante

Ok Magus let’s do it your way.

Lets look at one of the pages. This one should do nicely. http://www.carm.org/doctrine/isJesusGod.htm
On the left we find in a column of verses those supposed creative acts which are ascribed to Jesus. This column is labeled, “JESUS”. You no doubt will note that all the verses are from the New Testament. On the right are a column of verses from the Old Testament, the one exception being Rom14:10. This column is labeled, “GOD, YAHWEH”. These constitute the supposed creative acts of Godhead which emanate from Yahweh. A center column contains headings such as “Creator”, “First and Last”, and “I Am” among others.

The verses in the two columns correspond to these headings. The first heading is “Creator” and two New Testament verses, John1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17, are quoted in the left column. In the right column two Old Testament verses are quoted, Job 33: 4, and Isaiah 40:28.

It appears that the compiler intends us to think that as a creative act is ascribed to both Jesus and Yahweh the two should be considered one and the same. In other words because Jesus created and Yahweh created Jesus is Yahweh and Yahweh is Jesus.

Dear Wife will be gratified to know that based on our work together in the garden we are now the same person and not merely the metaphorical “one flesh” of Biblical lore. Had we found some way to engage Teenage Daughter in the creative act of gardening our little family could ascend to Trinity.

There are two primary faults in the presentation we are discussing. The first is found in the left column and constitutes a complete and total lack of any verse that says “ Jesus is God.” The second fault is the complete and total lack of verses in the right column that credit multiple persons to Yahweh.

The entire force of the argument here is that if two persons do the same thing they are really the same being who can be understood as two persons, leaving off for now the third person. And, even though there are no verses which clearly and without ambiguity state that these persons are one and the same being you are to consider this condition as true and proper for purposes of worship and devotion whether it makes sense or not.

No consideration is given to the thought that two persons can very well preform the same act and yet remain separate and distinct beings. Indeed the evidence here more surely presents the case for two Gods than it does for one God.

Your turn Magus.

JT

gregor

Judge

Thank you for the link. The Rutger's prof concludes:

"Whether the Greek version of Matthew was a translation of this Semitic text, as Jerome and eastern Christian authors assumed, or vice versa is also a matter of scholarly debate. For citations of this "Hebrew" gospel by Origen, Eusebius and Jerome himself include material that seems to have been added to the canonical gospel of Matthew."

"Jerome's claim that Matthew did not rely on the standard Greek Septuagint translation of Jewish scripture is of little use for deciding the issue of the original language of this gospel. For [there are examples frmo the LXX and from the hebrew text]."

So, in 393 (when Jerome is writing), we have different gospels texts, we have additions by later writers, and we have confusion.

judge

Thanks Gregor.
If you are going to claim that there were different versions around then which are different from the standard greek and aramaic versions we have today then we really need to show this.

What are the actual facts which show this to be the case?

You still have not shown that there were different texts.

Jerome provides two quotes from Matthew that are in todays texts!

And he shows that the hebrew text he refers to is not the one we use today!

So it seems Jerome cmpares the peshitta version of Matthew with a hebrew text we no longer have and with an LXX text (of which there are more than one)
He provides two quotes which are in todays Matthew.
I don't see how this proves there was a different text around then.
As Jrme was involved ina dispute with augustine as to whether the LXX should be used for a translation we should be skeptical about his claim that the aramaic matthew does not follow the LXX.

What does this mean?
hat it follows the LXX less that the hebrew he uses or that it never follows the LXX.
If you claim the latter then we would have the unlikely situation where , the matthew he refers to never follows the LXX but alwys follow the hebrew he used. quite unlikely from what we know today.

Amlodhi

Hi judge,

Although, for reasons which I will explain, I don't think it critical to the issue whether the translation should read "to copy" or "described to me". However, though I have the volumes of the ante-nicene fathers, I own none of the volumes of the nicene or post-nicene fathers. The translation I accessed then was from http://www.ccel.org because their translation had a fairly extensive statement of support, to wit:

I also found the original phrase:

Perhaps someone well versed in the Latin can help us out here, but it appears to me that this says something along the lines of:

(Mihi) To me (quoque) also (a Nazaraeis qui in Borea) the Nazarenes in Borea (urbe Syriae) the city Syria, (hoc volumine utuntur) this volume which they use, (describendi facultas fuit) by opportunity was described the contents.

Again, I have no Latin so this is probably horrible and I hope someone schooled in Latin can help us out. However, it certainly seems to say that the volume was described to Jerome and not that he copied it.

Also, again, the above work in which it is still unsure whether it was described to Jerome or whether he copied it, is the source for the quotes "out of Egypt . ." and ". . .called a Nazarene".

However, this does not take into account that Jerome says that there was a "Gospel according to the Hebrews" , which he did translate, and which he also says is "generally maintained (to be) the "Gospel according to Matthew" and that in this reference, Jerome does provide quotes other than those from above. To wit:

I know of neither septuagint passage nor masoretic passage in which Jesus says: "What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him?"

And yet it is most intriquing that in both the above descriptions, Jerome says that the document was "used by the Nazarenes".

And to make matters even more complex, there is mentioned a work attributed to Matthew, and written in Hebrew, which he never published but wrote "in secret". Following is a translation of the letter written to Jerome regarding this work and Jerome' s subsequent reply?

Thus it is said that Matthew had written (in his own hand in Hebrew) an account of the infancy of Jesus.

Thus, we have reference to a work of Matthew, (used by the Nazarenes), which provides two quotes, i.e., "Out of Egypt . ." and ". . .called a Nazarene" which Jerome may have only had described to him, rather than copied and translated.

We also have a reference to a work of Matthew (again, used by the Nazarenes) which is called both "The Gospel of the Hebrews" and "The Gospel of Matthew" and, further, possibly called "The Gospel among the Hebrews" (Irenaeus). This gospel, written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, was definitely translated by Jerome into Latin and Greek. However, the quote referenced from this work, i.e., (Jesus says) "What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him?", is not extant in any canonized work.

Thus, it is still unclear at this point whether the various allusions to a "Gospel of Matthew" in the Hebrew/Aramaic language are referring to a document consistent with our canonical Matthew, or to a different document which is also referred to as "The Gospel according to (or among) the Hebrews".

Regardless, I do find it additionally interesting that we have, (in addition to the above referenced works), a work attributed to Matthew, written in the Hebrew by his own hand, in which it is stated that Matthew records the infancy narratives of Jesus. And though this work is clearly differentiated from the Gospel of Matthew, it is interesting that a manuscript purporting to be from Matthew's own hand should fail to make the canon.


Namaste'

Amlodhi