Shem Tov or Shem Tob Matthew--The Hebrew Matthew

[sheep wrecked]

(12-29-2008 09:26 PM)carl37 Wrote:  I would like to know if there are any more and what they say. We have words or phrases in the English language that another language may not comprehend ie... Dumb as a rock or Dead as a doorknob. What if when someone was translating from hebrew to greek or aramaic to greek or vice versa and something was written by Paul or Peter or John that they didn't know what they exactly meant?

This is precisely why it takes scholarship to translate and why someone who does not know the language they are translating from cannot be trusted. As Stref pointed out, one can translate from one language to another quite successfully, getting the intended message across - IF one knows both languages very well.

Those who translated the KJV [for example] had doctorates in Hebrew and Greek besides speaking English, and there were several of each. So it's not just one man's translating expertise, but a group comparing their work.

Again, the issue comes down to the Sovereignty of God. Either He enabled men to translate HIS Word from language to language for all to read and understand, or He failed to preserve His Word. And that is the bottom line

btw Carl, who is "Yahweh"?:what:
hint: translation errors by wanna be scholars

[carl37]

Strefanash,

It is your right to be a pacifist if you like. I would like to venture that if someone were to break into your home and try to rob you or perhaps do some kind of harm to you or your family that you would not sit idly by. There are instances when taking up arms is just. Not saying that is happening today, however at this present moment I do have what is considered man's freedom that has been gained by taking up arms. Although I don't cherish it, I do enjoy being able to get in my vehicle and driving wherever I want or to be able to write and read what I choose. There are many places where people do not have that option. I would like to think that they long to be free from that opression. That being said what was the deal in Luke 22: 36-38? What about verse 50?

You may think that the military is insignificant or even serving is insignificant. Remember this, we in many places enjoy the physical freedom on this earth by the loss of someone else's life. I don't think that it should be looked on so flippantly.

[sheep wrecked]

(12-30-2008 11:11 AM)carl37 Wrote:  Strefanash,

It is your right to be a pacifist if you like. I would like to venture that if someone were to break into your home and try to rob you or perhaps do some kind of harm to you or your family that you would not sit idly by. There are instances when taking up arms is just. Not saying that is happening today, however at this present moment I do have what is considered man's freedom that has been gained by taking up arms. Although I don't cherish it, I do enjoy being able to get in my vehicle and driving wherever I want or to be able to write and read what I choose. There are many places where people do not have that option. I would like to think that they long to be free from that opression. That being said what was the deal in Luke 22: 36-38? What about verse 50?

You may think that the military is insignificant or even serving is insignificant. Remember this, we in many places enjoy the physical freedom on this earth by the loss of someone else's life. I don't think that it should be looked on so flippantly.

however, you are welcome to start a new thread on it if you would like under "Christianity". I think pacifism is an excellent topic!

[Vic]

Carl:

Quote:As far as Rose asking for where I got the list. I stated in the post each instance that was given for that particular point of view. As far as these gentlemen being minor scholars so what.

Are you saying then, Carl, that you manufactured that list and are in fact from the Remnant of YHWH website? or Yahweh's New Covenant Assembly?

Because claiming to have given each instance of the particular point of view--knowing that list was compiled first on either of those websites--are you claiming to be the author or plagiarising the list?

Either way, it is extremely poor scholarship as has been pointed out--as most advocate aramaic originals, not Hebrew, which was what you were trying to advocate.

Suggesting you don't believe or agree begs the question, what is your agenda? You promote Hebrew roots views, have sacred name inclinations, insinuate or accuse anyone who disagrees with your statements of being anti semitic or anti-messianic or anti-jewish etc., claiming those have lack of love of whatever name you are using today that you follow, and then you say,

Quote:Again, I never said that I supported the newer list of scholars who implied that Matthew was written in Hebrew. I just listed them as some reference in addition to the early church fathers.

Which is it Carl, you posted the list to agree with it's faulty scholarship or to disagree with it?

To prove a Hebrew Matthew and then Hebrew original NT or disprove a Hebrew Matthew and then disprove a Hebrew NT and instead advocate for an Aramaic one?

As has been stated by you:

Quote:The point of this thread is the discussion of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew. The manuscript exists hence the reason for this thread.

You seem to be mixing apples and turnips Carl, and totally missing what is being said to you. Let me be clear, I am not shouting at you, but, PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTAND:

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is not a legitimate Hebrew Matthew that you are thinking exists. There is no original Hebrew Matthew manuscript in existance.

Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew was not written in the first century. READ THIS CAREFULLY

The Shem Tov Matthew or any Hebrew Matthews, originated in Europe between 1300-1500. Precisely, Shem Tov or Shem Tob is dated 1380, while DuTillet and Muenster are about 1550. Together they make up the "Middle Ages Matthews" but, they are very different, and as one stated, that is one of the ironies.

Shem Tov's "Matthew", or Shem Tob's Matthew as some call it, which textual critics will tell you, is nothing more than an altered medieval text, which is a corrupt copy of the Latin text, which was originally copied from the Greek by those who didn't believe in Christ. Most legitimate textual critics have all but ignored this middle age manuscript.

The truth is that uninformed believers are being led by unbelievers to accept an altered anti-Christian version of Matthew that was included in the writing titled "Even Bohan" or "The Touchstone." This document was authored by Shem Tov, an unbelieving anti-Christian Jewish writer who some have referred to as a theologian, who resided in Spain during the fourteenth century. His copy of Hebrew Matthew has anti-Christian polemical commentary by him throughout the text.

The Jewish Encyclopedia states this about the author of the Even Bohan:

"...As a Talmudic scholar he carried on a correspondence with Sheshet. At Tarazona he completed his "Eben Bohan" (May, 1380 or 1385), a polemical work against baptized Jews..." [IBN SHAPRUT (SHAFRUT, By : Richard Gottheil ; Meyer Kayserling
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...em%20tov%2",,-1,0,,,,]

"...Dr. William L. Petersen, The Genesis of Shem Tob Matthew: "104. There is no mystery about the genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew. It is obvious that it incorporates material from a variety of sources (e.g., from the Toledoth Jeshu, the Vetus Latina, etc.). But because of the high number of agreements with the Liège Harmony, many of them unique, the tradition behind the Liège Harmony--which we know to be a Latin gospel harmony--must also be the principal element responsible for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew:"
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Pete...tml#par133

Carl, lets recap---there is no original Hebrew Matthew. Shem Tob/Tov Hebrew Matthews are manufactured as a polemic against Christ and Christians.

Therefore they are useless to anyone except those with those anti christ beliefs.

Quote:As a final thought believe you me, I am in no way trying to dissuade anyone here from their views nor do I think anyone here is trying to dissuade me from mine. .... I enjoy (dare I say it?) playing the devil's advocate so to speak just to see what kind of response is evoked.

Might I suggest Carl, if you want to discuss something, that you resist the temptation to stand in the devil's corner presenting lies and poor scholarship as fact and something that you appear to be advocating, and then when shown to be incorrect, say you didn't agree with it in the first place, you just want to see what happens.

From my point of view---it goes against the scriptures to behave in that manner.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

If you want to ask questions that you don't necessarilyy believe---why not just say, "I don't agree with this, but some say...."

After all, as you said, we are all adults, there's no need to play games.

[strefanash]

I am interested in matters of general theology as well as only Hebrew roots etc. If the mods would like to move this to another thread I would agree to this


I moved Strefanash's respone to a new thread in the Christianity Section under the topic of: Is Pacifism Right or Wrong?

http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=72

[carl37]

My apologies. I compiled the list from a variety of websites merely as a reference. I do not consider myself in the Hebrew roots movement or any other denomination. Others may lump me in there and that's o.k. My position is this: I believe that Yeshua or Yehushua was the son of the almighty Yawhew or Yahuweh or Yehovah (I'm not sure at this point in time which is the correct rendering). He came to be the final sacrifice for sin. I believe that belief in him is a pre-requisite for salvation. I do not believe that he nailed the commandments to the cross rather the enmity of the law. I Believe that as a believer in Yeshua that we are grafted in to the nation of Israel as referenced by the following:

Jer 12:14 Thus saith the LORD against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them.
Jer 12:15 And it shall come to pass, after that I have plucked them out I will return, and have compassion on them, and will bring them again, every man to his heritage, and every man to his land.
Jer 12:16 And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The LORD liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people.
Jer 12:17 But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.

I rather do not like to use the greek rendering of the messiah's name as He was Hebrew and therefore has a Hebrew name.
I rather do not like to use the generic version of Yahweh or Yahuweh, or Yehovah's name as throughout the scriptures we are told that if we swear by his name we shall be built in the midst of his people or call upon the name of the Almighty we may be saved etc. etc. etc.

I believe that the Sabbath is the 7th day of the week and is the day of rest still viable for us today. In Vine's expository dictionary of old and new testament words it reads: For the first three centuries (300 years) of the Christian era the first day of the week was never confounded with the Sabbath; the confusion of the Jewish and Christian institutions was due to declension from apostolic teaching.

The following is from the Merriam Webster online Dictionary:

Etymology: Middle English declenson, modification of Middle French declinaison, from Latin declination-, declinatio grammatical inflection, turning aside, from declinare to inflect, turn aside
Date:15th century
1 a: noun, adjective, or pronoun inflection especially in some prescribed order of the forms b: a class of nouns or adjectives having the same type of inflectional forms
2: a falling off or away : deterioration

So we see from Vine's dictionary that for the first 3 centuries there was no doubt what the first day of the week was and what the Sabbath was. It was a decline from the Apostolic teaching that brought us to the confusion today.

Upon reading this I did some research as best I could and come to my own conclusion that it was Constantine in his edict in the year 321 that legislated the "venerable day of the Sun" to be a rest-day. I also found the in about 363-364 the council of Laodicea met and the following are some of the rules or canons they decreed:

Maintaining order among bishops, clerics and laypeople (canons 3-5, 11-13, 21-27, 40-44, 56-57)
Enforcing modest behaviour of clerics and laypeople (4, 27, 30, 36, 53-55)
Regulating approach to heretics (canons 6-10, 31-34, 37), Jews (canons 16, 37-38) and pagans (canon 39)
Outlawing the keeping of the Saturday sabbath and solemnifying Sunday as the Christian sabbath (canon 29)
Outlining liturgical practices (canons 14-20, 21-23, 25, 28, 58-59)
Restrictions during Lent (canons 45, 49-52)
Admission and instruction of catechumens and neophytes (canons 45-48)
Specifying the Biblical canon (canons 59-60)

Notice the Outlawing the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath and solemnifying Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. To me the council did no different by changing the Torah, than what the scribes and Pharisees did by adding their rules and regulations. (This is my opinion and belief).

Notice the Restrictions during Lent. To me Lent is actually the "Weeping for Tammuz" spoken of by Ezekiel 8:14. (One has to research Tammuz oneself) This is expressly called an abomination.

There is so much more to expound on but this will kind of give an idea where I stand.


I apologize if I have offended anyone. That was not my intention. I do respect each one's personal views. I do like the forum and think it is good to be challenged.
Thank you for this opportunity.

[strefanash]

I understand that christians met on Sundays since the very beginning as it was the day of the Resurrection. An anti christian roman writer some time before Constantine, whose name I cannot remember wrote

"they gather before dawn on the first day of the week and worship Christ as God"

If this is true then the fact that they did not confound sunday and sabbath has a totally different slant on it: they did not keep the Sabbath but they honoured the Resurrection - different days and most assuredly not the Sabbath.

Still, in the light of St Paul as regards honouring one day or another they were at liberty to do so

If Constantine, whose christian conversion i hold extremely suspect did in fact decree these things, and tried to turn sunday to a christian sabbath, that is meaningless. He was certainly carnal in behaviour as he had one of his sons murdered for plotting against him and likened himself to a thirteenth apostle, not only that but he really did not care about theology, he, as an emperor only wanted order which means he wanted bishops to stop quarreling

It is a mark of the carnality of the church that most of them, including Eusebius of Caesaria who was Constantines biographer, were ecstatic that an emperor called himself a christian and so did not persectute christians. But this did not stop the blood flowing, for the church required that what they regarded as heretics be persecuted.

Also the fact that they had already started to venerate dead men's bone as relics shows how degraded their religion was

Mercy from these people? they preferred to hurl anathemas at each other and run to the emperor to get an opponent exiled.

---

It seems that the author of this was Pliny as governor of Bithynia who wrote to the Emperor Trajan - died 117 AD - about what to do about those troubling christians.

But my latin is not good enough to be sure, i googled the phrase quasi deo which remember to be part of the quote, and got this.

If however I am correct then this shows that the church gathered on sundays long before Constantine. more than 200 years before, in fact

---

A little more research and i see that Pliny the younger wrote this in 111 AD, but he says they gathered on a fixed day of the week, with no reference as to which one. That it was Sunday is an inference. So my point remains unproven, alas . . . . .

[carl37]

Strefanash,


Great post. It is good to have dialogue and ponder upon the almighty. I agree that it is possible that they gathered on Sunday before Constantine. There is nothing wrong with meeting on any day. We actually see that in:

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

So I think it is good for us to meet daily. I think it is wrong to substitute the Sabbath which was instituted by our father, for Sunday.

The messiah is supposed to be our example; therefore I understand that to mean follow what he did and what he said. No he did not expressly say "Peter I command you to keep the Sabbath" however he did say:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

We see here what the messiah says concerning the things he expounded on the Mount:

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I believe that chapter 7 verse 21 and 22 is talking about most christians. My reason for belief in that, is that I do not hear atheists prophecying in the messiahs name, nor buddhists, nor muslims, nor wiccans, nor anyone outside of the christian religion. What religion goes around the world doing things in the name of Jesus? Christianity.

One meaning of iniquity is the violation of a law or a duty or moral principal.

We see that in chapter 7 verse 22 he is talking about "that day". I take that to mean at the white throne judgement when the books are opened up. So he is talking of future events.

Messiah says think not that i come to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill (paraphrased)
Many today say that he nailed them to the cross. Messiah says many will come in that day saying Lord, lord have we not prophesied in thy name and did works and cast out devils and he says depart from me those who have violated the law. (paraphrased of course)


As i have said these are my thoughts and perceptions. Not those of the staff and management. I thank everyone for their patience and kindness and allowing me to be a part of this forum.

[Rose of Shushan]

Carl,

following on from your last post,if you will permit me to throw in these verses from Matthew also.
These verses refers to what happens at the final judgement /last day etc.
Do I see the Sabbath there? Do I see any feasts?-


Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and you gave me food: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came unto me.
Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you hungry, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink?
Mat 25:38 When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you?
Mat 25:39 Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came unto you?
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Since you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.
Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and you gave me no food: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you hungry, or thirsty or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto you?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Since you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

There we see what Messiah defines us lawless...he desires mercy not sacrifice...that we look after the vulnerable the suffering, the outcasts..that we love one another as He loved us ...compassion and action,that we treat each other as we would treat Jesus himself

[strefanash]

The question of the Sabbath is vexed, for the 7th day adventists, with whom i have had dealings correctly insist that even if we are not under law, yet the sabbath was not only an ordinace of moses but one of creation.

But my definition is necessarily broader than theirs

If it were good to meet every day, is it not good to rest every day, by which i do not mean inactivity but activity done in repose, which is the sabbath rest of the believer, the spiritual life of the fruit of the Spirit?