09-29-2011, 03:36 AM
:
Dave,
I will try to state my position with more detail, since you seem not to understand what I am saying. Its very simple really...if you don't confuse who The Father & The Son are...and their reltionship with each other.
I don't know all that Andrew Roth believes and teaches, nor all what you believe for that matter...only that I have read a few notes of yours and his, in both your 1st edition translations of The Western Peshitto (you) and The Eastern Peshitta (him)...I don't agree with either of you on some things you teach in some of the notes I have read so far.
For instance, you teach in your long note for the verse of Hebrews 2:9 that The Father & The Holy Spirit, died on the Cross....even going so far as teaching that when The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) died on the Cross, the 1st universe that existed to that point ceased to exist...and a new universe and earth was then created...In that note, you seem to be both a Preterist and a Universal Reconciliationist....Correct me if I misunderstood your teaching there in that note.
Also, since it seems that you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (The Trinity) died on the Cross....then you would believe that the Greek, and the Western Peshitto to have the correct reading in Acts 20:28.
If you just thought that Acts 20:28 was refering to The Son of God, as God The Word, who bled and died, who is both Divine & Human as to His natures, which constitute His Person, which I do believe, yet understand from The Scriptures and the witness of The Holy Spirit, that there is a unity of both GOD & Man...Yeshua being Both, as to substance and nature in ONE Person...The Father & The Son are ONE, in Unity, but are NOT the very same Person, as they are distict in Position and Authority within the Godhead.
BUT, you seem to have been teaching that it was not just The Lamb of GOD who suffered, bled and died to atone for sin, but that The Father & The Holy Spirit died on the Cross as well...And this is the problem I see in your teachings...if this is what you truly believe. If not, please clarify. And if you don't feel good about it here...then in a side conversation is fine with me.
I do not teach such a thing myself...And believe it is error, according to what is taught in The Scriptures.
You may not speak too much longer with me Dave, because you tend to leave abruptly when you are not agreed with. I've seen this repeated a few times already with you in the past. I am trying to be very polite to you Dave, and show you what I believe the Scriptures teach and which Scripture text is the Original reading.
I have shown already that the reading "Church of the Lord, which He purchased with His own blood" is the earliest form we have a witness for of Acts 20:28, which is quoted verbatim by Bishop Ireanaus about 170-180 A.D. That is LONG before the reading is found in Sinaiaticus (if that be the original reading of that text) there. Looks like some scratching off of the under texts, that was replaced with the overwritten text...
Again, Theologically/Christologicaly it works both ways fine...UNLESS, a person tries to make the "Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood" mean to teach, that The Father & The Holy Spirit, suffered, bled, and died on the Cross along with The Son of God The Father & who was born of His Holy Spirit. This is when the verse can become an issue of that kind.
Again, just to be clear Dave. So you don't misunderstand and perhaps misrepresent what I believe ---> I believe there is a correct distinction to be maintained in regards to The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit...and their relationship with each other...and should not be confused. Which I believe the Church of the East does maintain in their doctrines. And which I have always believed and understood the Scriptures to teach, and which I have seen so far from the teachings of Bishop Nestorius, that he and Bishop Theadore of Mopsuestia had the correct understanding as taught in The Scriptures and the Early Church Father's before their time.
And from what I have read so far from Cryril of Alexandria and those teachers from whom he was taught...they are in error, concerning the Two Natures of Yeshua, The Anointed One.
I am of the School of Antioch, not of the School of Alexandria...which is where things got messed up real bad, both in their texts, and doctrines.
You may continue to disagree with me Dave about this and other matters...But I wont be upset or get testy with you. But I will stand on what I bleieve is the Truth of the matter in each case..and earnestly contend for the Faith and teachings that were once given to the Saints, by Christ and His Apostles, and passed on to their disciples.
As to YHWH being The Messiah...this is certainly true.
And the Peshitta proves it like no other Text does....He is The WORD which proceeded forth from GOD, begotton before all worlds, as the Nicean Creed says, and in the fullness of time, was manifested and tabernacled in perfect union with The ONLY Sinless Human Being, Yeshua, The Son of God/The Son of Man...whom has ALWAYS been, the means by and through whom, GOD has and is communicating with Mankind. This is taught all over in The New Testament, which shows, that the Pre-incarnate Word of God The Father...was the One speaking with all the Patriarchs in the Old Testament times, and for mans sake was made flesh and dwelt among us, becomeing subject to death for our redemption.
The early Christians taught, that The Father is un-named. YHWH=The Word of God=Yeshua, The Son of God. Mar-Yah did indeed shed His blood...because Mar-Yah IS YHWH=Yeshua=The WORD of God the Father, manifested in the Person of Yeshua, The Messiah of GOD The Father.
We must maintain the correct distinction and ballance that is shown to us in The Holy Sriptures and that which is always taught by the early Church teachers.
Yeshua is not just a man with GOD in Him or united with Him...He is The Word of GOD, incarnate, who was "begotton of The Father before all worlds"...and prior to His Human incarnation...as The Creed states.
But Dave...this is going into a long discussion now, which is not specifically dealing with the textual issues which we had been discussing...as I said above, if you would like to continue to discuss the Doctrines...we can do that in another place...as I think this forum is not for such long discussions on doctrinal issues.
And if you don't want to do that, nor continue with just the textual matters...than I hope Blessings upon you Dave...I hold no offense against you in any personal manner whatsoever and have tried not to offend you in my words or actions.
I will continue to search for the answers as to why the Greek text went from "The Church of the Lord" (which looks to be the ealiest reading in the Greek copies), to "The Church of the Lord & God, (as found in the Majority of Greek texts examined so far), to "The Church of God" (which looks to be the minority reading and the latest in terms of time)...and try to learn why and where these vairant readings came from. I know that there were many groups with contending views about the Messiah, during the 2nd to 5th centuries, which these early qoutes and texts come from in point of time and people group...so that must be factored in to the equation.
Shalma,
Chuck
Dave,
I will try to state my position with more detail, since you seem not to understand what I am saying. Its very simple really...if you don't confuse who The Father & The Son are...and their reltionship with each other.
I don't know all that Andrew Roth believes and teaches, nor all what you believe for that matter...only that I have read a few notes of yours and his, in both your 1st edition translations of The Western Peshitto (you) and The Eastern Peshitta (him)...I don't agree with either of you on some things you teach in some of the notes I have read so far.
For instance, you teach in your long note for the verse of Hebrews 2:9 that The Father & The Holy Spirit, died on the Cross....even going so far as teaching that when The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) died on the Cross, the 1st universe that existed to that point ceased to exist...and a new universe and earth was then created...In that note, you seem to be both a Preterist and a Universal Reconciliationist....Correct me if I misunderstood your teaching there in that note.
Also, since it seems that you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (The Trinity) died on the Cross....then you would believe that the Greek, and the Western Peshitto to have the correct reading in Acts 20:28.
If you just thought that Acts 20:28 was refering to The Son of God, as God The Word, who bled and died, who is both Divine & Human as to His natures, which constitute His Person, which I do believe, yet understand from The Scriptures and the witness of The Holy Spirit, that there is a unity of both GOD & Man...Yeshua being Both, as to substance and nature in ONE Person...The Father & The Son are ONE, in Unity, but are NOT the very same Person, as they are distict in Position and Authority within the Godhead.
BUT, you seem to have been teaching that it was not just The Lamb of GOD who suffered, bled and died to atone for sin, but that The Father & The Holy Spirit died on the Cross as well...And this is the problem I see in your teachings...if this is what you truly believe. If not, please clarify. And if you don't feel good about it here...then in a side conversation is fine with me.
I do not teach such a thing myself...And believe it is error, according to what is taught in The Scriptures.
You may not speak too much longer with me Dave, because you tend to leave abruptly when you are not agreed with. I've seen this repeated a few times already with you in the past. I am trying to be very polite to you Dave, and show you what I believe the Scriptures teach and which Scripture text is the Original reading.
I have shown already that the reading "Church of the Lord, which He purchased with His own blood" is the earliest form we have a witness for of Acts 20:28, which is quoted verbatim by Bishop Ireanaus about 170-180 A.D. That is LONG before the reading is found in Sinaiaticus (if that be the original reading of that text) there. Looks like some scratching off of the under texts, that was replaced with the overwritten text...
Again, Theologically/Christologicaly it works both ways fine...UNLESS, a person tries to make the "Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood" mean to teach, that The Father & The Holy Spirit, suffered, bled, and died on the Cross along with The Son of God The Father & who was born of His Holy Spirit. This is when the verse can become an issue of that kind.
Again, just to be clear Dave. So you don't misunderstand and perhaps misrepresent what I believe ---> I believe there is a correct distinction to be maintained in regards to The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit...and their relationship with each other...and should not be confused. Which I believe the Church of the East does maintain in their doctrines. And which I have always believed and understood the Scriptures to teach, and which I have seen so far from the teachings of Bishop Nestorius, that he and Bishop Theadore of Mopsuestia had the correct understanding as taught in The Scriptures and the Early Church Father's before their time.
And from what I have read so far from Cryril of Alexandria and those teachers from whom he was taught...they are in error, concerning the Two Natures of Yeshua, The Anointed One.
I am of the School of Antioch, not of the School of Alexandria...which is where things got messed up real bad, both in their texts, and doctrines.
You may continue to disagree with me Dave about this and other matters...But I wont be upset or get testy with you. But I will stand on what I bleieve is the Truth of the matter in each case..and earnestly contend for the Faith and teachings that were once given to the Saints, by Christ and His Apostles, and passed on to their disciples.
As to YHWH being The Messiah...this is certainly true.
And the Peshitta proves it like no other Text does....He is The WORD which proceeded forth from GOD, begotton before all worlds, as the Nicean Creed says, and in the fullness of time, was manifested and tabernacled in perfect union with The ONLY Sinless Human Being, Yeshua, The Son of God/The Son of Man...whom has ALWAYS been, the means by and through whom, GOD has and is communicating with Mankind. This is taught all over in The New Testament, which shows, that the Pre-incarnate Word of God The Father...was the One speaking with all the Patriarchs in the Old Testament times, and for mans sake was made flesh and dwelt among us, becomeing subject to death for our redemption.
The early Christians taught, that The Father is un-named. YHWH=The Word of God=Yeshua, The Son of God. Mar-Yah did indeed shed His blood...because Mar-Yah IS YHWH=Yeshua=The WORD of God the Father, manifested in the Person of Yeshua, The Messiah of GOD The Father.
We must maintain the correct distinction and ballance that is shown to us in The Holy Sriptures and that which is always taught by the early Church teachers.
Yeshua is not just a man with GOD in Him or united with Him...He is The Word of GOD, incarnate, who was "begotton of The Father before all worlds"...and prior to His Human incarnation...as The Creed states.
But Dave...this is going into a long discussion now, which is not specifically dealing with the textual issues which we had been discussing...as I said above, if you would like to continue to discuss the Doctrines...we can do that in another place...as I think this forum is not for such long discussions on doctrinal issues.
And if you don't want to do that, nor continue with just the textual matters...than I hope Blessings upon you Dave...I hold no offense against you in any personal manner whatsoever and have tried not to offend you in my words or actions.
I will continue to search for the answers as to why the Greek text went from "The Church of the Lord" (which looks to be the ealiest reading in the Greek copies), to "The Church of the Lord & God, (as found in the Majority of Greek texts examined so far), to "The Church of God" (which looks to be the minority reading and the latest in terms of time)...and try to learn why and where these vairant readings came from. I know that there were many groups with contending views about the Messiah, during the 2nd to 5th centuries, which these early qoutes and texts come from in point of time and people group...so that must be factored in to the equation.
Shalma,
Chuck