02-08-2005, 07:11 AM
Now Paul, did I get your panties in a bunch?
Heh, it was simple question, it wasn't intended to make you defensive about things. Simple question Christians or Catholics?
There is a problem at times when people associate death with faith. Not everyone is a true martyr and death is quite cheap anymore.
There is also problems with theology and doctrine when it comes to certain sects and groups of people who call themselves Christians, or similar names, when in fact they are living within their minds. To them belief is good enough. It is standard teaching at times, especially in the Catholic churches. I used to be catholic for a short while when I was growing up, so I am aquainted with the lack of salvation teaching and the "baptism is good enough" manmade doctrines. Here I am believing in God and see no reason I wouldn't go to heaven when in fact I was just as far away from God as I was when I was born into this world.
To be a Christian you must be born again. I didn't set the standard Jesus did. It is written down as a quote from Jesus. For those who think otherwise, He says, "Depart from me for I never knew you."
It's not my particular doctrine or theological bent, it is His. He makes the distinction on purpose for His reasons.
As far as the syriac text:
What's interesting lately is this theory of the aramaic new testament being original. First, there is no true aramaic print text being presented by any of the followers of this theory, it is a text in a dialect of aramaic called syriac. Second, it has no originality to it, it follows the standarized text types rather than the western text types that ruled the 1st to 3rd centuries. This particular western text is everywhere within the church fathers quotations yet this syriac text has no similarity to it. It follows the condensed Byzantine text type similar to the received and majority text types.
That second one is really the tell-tell sign that this is just a theory. If this syriac text would have given us the original western text in it's complete unadulterated form rather than a standardized form, it would have every single scholar in the community on it ears over it, but it don't.
There is no dated text earlier than the late 4th to 5th century, none. Yet, it is theorized as being original. Church leaders within the Church of The East go as far as to say it was handed down by the apostles themselves. Quite amazing to say the least when it has not a shred of history to it. Actually, no one knows where it came from because they can't locate any information on it.
All of this is fact, there is no sugar coat here.
The people who have most recently taken a liking to it in America are those who would call themselves messianic Christians, but it is not a readily used version within the fundamentalist groups. It's as if God refuses to vear away from the greek scriptures on purpose, and certainly refuses to use something new from the syriac camps.
It could be speculated that the Greek was a translation from one language then the syriac was a translation of the greek. Many have went about showing the aspect of this, how the syriac follows the greek too closely.
In summary, all of this is complete fact, yet there are the non-scholars and entertainers who would have you believe different. One must follow The Holy Spirit completely in things and be especially careful of the pitfalls that mankind attempts to throw up at the Body of Christ.
I should write a book about this, it is quite easy to summarize things. It would probably help many.
You see Paul, I won't look the other way and just accept what someone says or introduces to me, to do so would be foolish on my part. Anyone can look at the facts and educate themselves on this theory quite easily. Whenever someone does, the facts are easily noticed and it helps people to avoid the assumptions and ideals that many would have the uninitiated believe.
Truth is a wonderful thing, but it can be a troublesome thing for those who want to avoid the light of truth so that they can promote their personal agendas in the dark.
Heh, it was simple question, it wasn't intended to make you defensive about things. Simple question Christians or Catholics?
There is a problem at times when people associate death with faith. Not everyone is a true martyr and death is quite cheap anymore.
There is also problems with theology and doctrine when it comes to certain sects and groups of people who call themselves Christians, or similar names, when in fact they are living within their minds. To them belief is good enough. It is standard teaching at times, especially in the Catholic churches. I used to be catholic for a short while when I was growing up, so I am aquainted with the lack of salvation teaching and the "baptism is good enough" manmade doctrines. Here I am believing in God and see no reason I wouldn't go to heaven when in fact I was just as far away from God as I was when I was born into this world.
To be a Christian you must be born again. I didn't set the standard Jesus did. It is written down as a quote from Jesus. For those who think otherwise, He says, "Depart from me for I never knew you."
It's not my particular doctrine or theological bent, it is His. He makes the distinction on purpose for His reasons.
As far as the syriac text:
What's interesting lately is this theory of the aramaic new testament being original. First, there is no true aramaic print text being presented by any of the followers of this theory, it is a text in a dialect of aramaic called syriac. Second, it has no originality to it, it follows the standarized text types rather than the western text types that ruled the 1st to 3rd centuries. This particular western text is everywhere within the church fathers quotations yet this syriac text has no similarity to it. It follows the condensed Byzantine text type similar to the received and majority text types.
That second one is really the tell-tell sign that this is just a theory. If this syriac text would have given us the original western text in it's complete unadulterated form rather than a standardized form, it would have every single scholar in the community on it ears over it, but it don't.
There is no dated text earlier than the late 4th to 5th century, none. Yet, it is theorized as being original. Church leaders within the Church of The East go as far as to say it was handed down by the apostles themselves. Quite amazing to say the least when it has not a shred of history to it. Actually, no one knows where it came from because they can't locate any information on it.
All of this is fact, there is no sugar coat here.
The people who have most recently taken a liking to it in America are those who would call themselves messianic Christians, but it is not a readily used version within the fundamentalist groups. It's as if God refuses to vear away from the greek scriptures on purpose, and certainly refuses to use something new from the syriac camps.
It could be speculated that the Greek was a translation from one language then the syriac was a translation of the greek. Many have went about showing the aspect of this, how the syriac follows the greek too closely.
In summary, all of this is complete fact, yet there are the non-scholars and entertainers who would have you believe different. One must follow The Holy Spirit completely in things and be especially careful of the pitfalls that mankind attempts to throw up at the Body of Christ.
I should write a book about this, it is quite easy to summarize things. It would probably help many.
You see Paul, I won't look the other way and just accept what someone says or introduces to me, to do so would be foolish on my part. Anyone can look at the facts and educate themselves on this theory quite easily. Whenever someone does, the facts are easily noticed and it helps people to avoid the assumptions and ideals that many would have the uninitiated believe.
Truth is a wonderful thing, but it can be a troublesome thing for those who want to avoid the light of truth so that they can promote their personal agendas in the dark.