Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Importance of primacy
Now tell me can Christian Church be wrong? It's certain people (like Pope) who do and did err oftimes but not the Church, never:

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matt 28)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14)

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. (Ephes 5)

(Now all of sudden Christ has mistaken? God forbid.)

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (2nd To Timothy 3)
Shlama All:
The subject has gone "off topic". Rather than offend anyone, especially Ivan and Arkady, I would rather that we leave this topic alone for now. Let's get back to "The Importance of Primacy". Inner feelings are obviously very strong in this area and I think a cooling off time is prudent. Again, let's agree to disagree and get back to the discussion of the importance of Aramaic Primacy. Is that O.K. with everyone?

Love in our gracious Mashikha,
Stephen Silver Wrote:Is that O.K. with everyone?
Yes. I agree with you, Stephen, 200%.
I am sorry if my behaviour seemed rude to any one of you. I apologize. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Arkady Wrote:I am sorry if my behaviour seemed rude to any one of you. I apologize. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

Shlama All:
I also follow Arkady's humble lead and repent from my heart for taking things too personally.

"It's me O LORD standing in the need of prayer"

<!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->

Shlama All,
Whoa. Thanks everyone for settling your disagreements amicably. This was getting very uncomfortable to say the least.

We should have love for one another as that is the greatest commandment. Old quarrels about ethnicity and religion should not be a hindrance to anyone here because we want to welcome everyone Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Pagan.


I do not know how to delete but I left just one dot.
On one side thank you for your warm words.
On the other side let us be fair for God is not hypocritical.
If you not allow to mention about Jewish crimes against Christianity then
it is not fair to allow to mention about Turks and Kurds with their crimes about Assyrian Christianity.
Shlama Akhi Ivan:
Please follow Paul's lead and refrain from slandering the Jews. What is recorded historically shall stand with written records and eye-witness evidence. These things are permissible to talk about in another topic. This topic however, is the Importance of Primacy. Please stick to it.

IPOstapyuk Wrote:Stephen,

I do not know how to delete but I left just one dot.
On one side thank you for your warm words.
On the other side let us be fair for God is not hypocritical.
If you not allow to mention about Jewish crimes against Christianity then
it is not fair to allow to mention about Turks and Kurds with their crimes about Assyrian Christianity.

You're right - I took out the mention of the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators, and just mentioned the slaughter. Post edited.

Keep me honest on the rules as well, Stephen you can edit my posts and moderate me can I you!

Paul Younan Wrote:
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Stephen,

I do not know how to delete but I left just one dot.
On one side thank you for your warm words.
On the other side let us be fair for God is not hypocritical.
If you not allow to mention about Jewish crimes against Christianity then
it is not fair to allow to mention about Turks and Kurds with their crimes about Assyrian Christianity.

You're right - I took out the mention of the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrators, and just mentioned the slaughter. Post edited.

Keep me honest on the rules as well, Stephen you can edit my posts and moderate me can I you!


Shlama Shamasha Paul:
Understood and well said.

Stephen Silver
Forum Moderator
Going through the writings of the church fathers I stumbled across these:

Letters of St. Jerome > Letter 27
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired; but the Latin manuscripts of the Scriptures are proved to be faulty by the variations which all of them exhibit, and my object has been to restore them to the form of the Greek original, from which my detractors do not deny that they have been translated.

Letters of St. Jerome > Letter 71
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:5. As for my poor works which from no merits of theirs but simply from your own kindness you say that you desire to have; I have given them to your servants to transcribe, I have seen the paper-copies made by them, and I have repeatedly ordered them to correct them by a diligent comparison with the originals. For so many are the pilgrims passing to and fro that I have been unable to read so many volumes. They have found me also troubled by a long illness from which this Lent I am slowly recovering as they are leaving me. If then you find errors or omissions which interfere with the sense, these you must impute not to me but to your own servants; they are due to the ignorance or carelessness of the copyists, who write down not what they find but what they take to be the meaning, and do but expose their own mistakes when they try to correct those of others. It is a false rumour which has reached you to the effect that I have translated the books of Josephus and the volumes of the holy men Papias and Polycarp. I have neither the leisure nor the ability to preserve the charm of these masterpieces in another tongue. Of Origen and Didymus I have translated a few things, to set before my countrymen some specimens of Greek teaching. The canon of the Hebrew verity ? except the octoteuch which I have at present in hand? I have placed at the disposal of your slaves and copyists. Doubtless you already possess the version from the septuagint which many years ago I diligently revised for the use of students. The new testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek original. For as the true text of the old testament can only be tested by a reference to the Hebrew, so the true text of the new requires for its decision an appeal to the Greek.

Letters of St. Augustine > Letter 71
From Augustine to Jerome (A.D. 403)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:6. At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures. By this work, any disputant who supports an old false translation is either convinced or confuted with the utmost ease by the production and collation of manuscripts. And if, as indeed very rarely happens, something be found to which exception may be taken, who would be so unreasonable as not to excuse it readily in a work so useful that it cannot be too highly praised? I wish you would have the kindness to open up to me what you think to be the reason of the frequent discrepancies between the text supported by the Hebrew codices and the Greek Septuagint version. For the latter has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is not only proved by looking to the text itself, but has also been, as I remember, affirmed by yourself. You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.

The Harmony of the Gospels (Augustine) > Book I, Chapter 2
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:4. Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions. For Matthew is understood to have taken it in hand to construct the record of the incarnation of the Lord according to the royal lineage, and to give an account of most part of His deeds and words as they stood in relation to this present life of men. Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer. For in his narrative he gives nothing in concert with John apart from the others: by himself separately, he has little to record; in conjunction with Luke, as distinguished from the rest, he has still less; but in concord with Matthew, he has a very large number of passages. Much, too, he narrates in words almost numerically and identically the same as those used by Matthew, where the agreement is either with that evangelist alone, or with him in connection with the rest. On the other hand, Luke appears to have occupied himself rather with the priestly lineage and character of the Lord. For although in his own way he carries the descent back to David, what he has followed is not the royal pedigree, but the line of those who were not kings. That genealogy, too, he has brought to a point in Nathan the son of David, which person likewise was no king. It is not thus, however, with Matthew. For in tracing the lineage along through Solomon the king, he has pursued with strict regularity the succession of the other kings; and in enumerating these, he has also conserved that mystical number of which we shall speak hereafter.

Church History (Eusebius) > Book VI
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books, ? I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.
2. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

3. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name.

4. Farther on he says: But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance.


3. In his first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.
5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.' 1 Peter 5:13

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.
7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John's Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: But he who was 'made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,' 2 Corinthians 3:6 that is, Paul, who 'fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,' Romans 15:19 did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines.
8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' Matthew 16:18 has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.
9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us one Gospel, though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them? And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders.
10. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines.
11. In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: That the verbal style of the epistle entitled 'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself 'rude in speech' 2 Corinthians 11:6 that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.'

13. Farther on he adds: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul's.

14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it. But let this suffice on these matters.

Church History (Eusebius) > Book V
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:1. 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 Iren?us was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels:
2. Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.
3. 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.
4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.
5. He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist:
As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters....
6. And further on he says concerning the same:
We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.
7. He states these things concerning the Apocalypse in the work referred to. He also mentions the first Epistle of John, taking many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle of Peter. And he not only knows, but also receives, The Shepherd, writing as follows:
Well did the Scripture speak, saying, 'First of all believe that God is one, who has created and completed all things,' etc.


3. Pant?nus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time.

Homilies on First Corinthians (Chrysostom) > Homily 44
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

By this one word he strikes fear into all: those who made their members the members of an harlot; those who put stumbling blocks in the way of their brethren by the things offered in sacrifice unto idols; those who named themselves after men; those who refuse to believe the resurrection. And he not only strikes fear, but also points out the way of virtue and the fountain of vice, viz. that as when our love towards Him has become intense, there is no kind of sin but is extinguished and cast out thereby; so when it is too weak, it causes the same to spring up.

Maran atha. For what reason is this word used? And wherefore too in the Hebrew-tongue? Seeing that arrogance was the cause of all the evils, and this arrogance the wisdom from without produced, and this was the sum and substance of all the evils, a thing which especially distracted Corinth; in repressing their arrogance he did not even use the Greek tongue, but the Hebrew: signifying that so far from being ashamed of that sort of simplicity, he even embraces it with much warmth.

But what is the meaning of Maran atha? Our Lord has come. For what reason then does he use this phrase in particular? To confirm the doctrine of the Economy: out of which class of topics more than any other he has put together those arguments which are the seeds of the Resurrection. And not only this, but also to rebuke them; as if he had said, The common Lord of all has condescended to come down thus far, and are you in the same state, and do ye abide in your sins? Are ye not thrilled with the excess of His love, the crown of His blessings? Yea, consider but this one thing, says he, and it will suffice you for progress in all virtue, and you shall be able to extinguish all sin.

De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Quote:Chapter 3
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 C?sarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Ber?a, 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.

Of course, by saying 'hebrew' he really meant 'aramaic'.
an interesting story.
about 2 months ago a son borrowed money from father and then said:
forgive me my debt.
In Our Father prayer:
In Russian version it says: "...and forgive us our debts just like we forgive our debtors...".
In Ukrainian version it says :"..and forgive our guilty acts just like we forgive those who are guilty before us ...".
From my point of view the second corresponds to the Aramaic original.
Based on each separate translations two separate theologies can be developed.

I heard that Muslims build their faith only on Arabic version of Koran.
And they are right in their linguistic approach.

Its a good example for us that we must follow only
Aramaic original of the 22 books Peshitta as the
only original and foundation of our faith into the Gospel of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Privet tavarish, brat <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I do not quite agree with the ukrainian version. Matthew 6:12 uses a word, habayn means 'debts' as in Colossians 2:14 it exactly means that. A debt which needs to be paid back. The debt has however, been waived.

As I understand it, it is not about 'guilty acts' nor about sins, but our debt or duties which leads into slavery of death.
But I fully agree that it would be best to understand the source text, just as arabic was for moslems.
The gospel goes through our heart and is written on it, without language, if you know what I mean.

Pust Bog blagaslavit tebja.
distazo wrote
Quote:The gospel goes through our heart and is written on it, without language, if you know what I mean.
I know what you mean and it is right.
We are letter of Christ being read by all men.

Currently I just study Aramaic and am on the way of improvement
thanks to
Maybe 'hayav" has some more meanings and in this case I meant
that when Jesus was caught, the Jews were trying to "ithhayav" him which in the
context sounds to make Him guilty.

By the way concerning Col. 2:14 Murdock and Etheridge uses 'debts" whereas Lamsa uses
'sins', Vulgate uses 'decrees' and Greek uses 'dogmas'.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)