Apostolic Friends Forum - The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=48024)

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1497281)

But I didn't say that. My concern was what I've seen in some KJV only circles wherein the focus and reverence has shifted from Jesus to the glory, purity, and perfection of the book.

Quote:

The problem with the islamists is not that believe their book. It is that their book is one of deceptions, false beliefs, and attempting to undercut the authority of the scriptures, the old and new testament, by saying they were corrupted.

Yes, we know it is full of error, we agree on that. :highfive

What I was referring to how they believe the Quran is not only inerrant and infallible, but they actually reverence the book to the point of it being an idol. Remember, it is written as though it is the very words straight from the mouth of "Allah". It isn't just a collection of stories to be interpreted like the Bible.

Quote:

Our response should be to defend God's pure and perfect word, not acting like a mormon (burning in the bosom) claiming our revelation is simply by the Spirit. Competitive subjective "Spirit" revelations mean nothing.

Steven

I think there's room for disagreement on the issue. But, I'll revisit the topic. Do you have any good sources on this topic?

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1497340)

What I was referring to how they believe the Quran is not only inerrant and infallible, but they actually reverence the book to the point of it being an idol. Remember, it is written as though it is the very words straight from the mouth of "Allah". It isn't just a collection of stories to be interpreted like the Bible.

Sounds like you are saying the Bible is NOT the very words straight from the mouth of Jehovah, but is "just a collection of stories to be interpreted."

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1497281)

Back to borderline blasphemy. You have to be pretty well duped by the modern seminarian mishegas to think that believing that God has actually preserved his pure and perfect words in a tangible, readable Bible is idolatry.

The problem with the islamists is not that believe their book. It is that their book is one of deceptions, false beliefs, and attempting to undercut the authority of the scriptures, the old and new testament, by saying they were corrupted.

Our response should be to defend God's pure and perfect word, not acting like a mormon (burning in the bosom) claiming our revelation is simply by the Spirit. Competitive subjective "Spirit" revelations mean nothing.

Steven

Sorry Steven, but Aquila keeps his emotion meter on 10, and facts meter on 2.
He mainly says things to see what sort of reaction he will get. He really doesn't care either way.

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1497343)

Sounds like you are saying the Bible is NOT the very words straight from the mouth of Jehovah, but is "just a collection of stories to be interpreted."

Aquila is a troll.

His next stop is Atheistville. That's if he isn't there already. He is entertained by how his statements gain a reaction from posters. He wants to hang people for treason if they fly the flag of Dixie. He wants to disrupt churches with social protests. He believes that a nut shooting senators at a baseball game is just deserts. He honors a preacher who just has women play dress up to attend a church, yet doesn't call THAT legalism? Now he thinks we are talking about English Bible translation? He is like a young teen who hangs around the older men having adult conversations. He really hasn't a clue as to what they are talking about. But instead of keeping his mouth shut and learning something.
He chimes in, not really knowing what's going on and makes a fool of himself.
Houston tagged him so effectively in another thread. You would of thought Aquila would of contemplated those words on the tree of woe, and walk away with revelation concerning his own behavior. Sadly he blows it off, and continues to run along like a drunken man holding a Ming vase.

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1497280)

It looks like you say whatever is convenient.
Have you actually read anything about the Origen Latin writings and what Rufinus said?
How about a quote for your claim above.

Steven

here is a plain admission by Rufinus to changing the writing of Origen, out of his own handwriting.

“But I [Rufinus] followed his [Jerome’s] method of translation [Jerome’s method of forgery]...in certain places where you [Jerome] found things relating to the faith, that is the Trinity, expressed in a strange manner, you left out words at your discretion. This mode of translation we have both of us observed [Jerome and Rufinus]” Rufinus' Apology, Book II 27 a. :happydance

next time be a little less lazy and dig out the citations yourself.

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword (Post 1497540)

Where is this quote referring to Matthew 28:19 being altered?

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1497545)

Where is this quote referring to Matthew 28:19 being altered?

Afaik, there is no indication that Rufinus, who gave the first-person report of how he was working with Origen's writings, did anything but omit some text (expurgated). Partly in concern that there might have been tampering after Origen, and I think also in relationship to the eternally begetting (eternal generation of the sun) concepts of Origen and subordinist issues.. (It is an interesting study, and I would have fun looking at it more closely. Part of that study is comparing what we have extant from Origen in Greek along with Latin. One of the Greek quotes I am seeking to track down now.)

This means that quotes from Origen that are woven into his analysis are sound from 200 AD. The fact that they match Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and many, many others in the Ante-Nicene (before Eusebius) period seals the issue on the early church writers.

They support the thousands of mss in Greek, Latin Syriac and other languages that agree on the historical ending.

Note that FlamingZword puts words in the quote that his commentary, and false as well. That is an improper method, once again, showing that he is incapable of scholastic discussion.

======================

The next I include just as part of studies to understand the issues at the time of Origen. I think it is helpful to look at various elements of the Ante-Nicene writings.

Quote:

Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church
By Hans Boersma
https://books.google.com/books?id=CRLeDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT169

From Origen to Eusebius
Early Christian theologians treated the trinitarian controversies as exegetical controversies. At stake, they believed, was the proper interpretation of the Scriptures—most notably, perhaps, Proverbs 8..... At the same time, the road from exegesis to doctrine is one that the fathers knew to be strewn with obstacles. .. verses 22-25 .... . Reflecting on this passage in his book On First Principles (ca. 225), Origen refers every aspect of it to the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Speaking of the two natures of Christ, Origen explains that he wants “to see what the only-begotten Son of God is.” Origen then quotes the passage in question, along with Colossians 1:15, which refers to Christ as the “firstborn of all creation.” The theologian from Alexandria straightforwardly makes the point that both passages refer to the eternal generation of the Son. This reading could easily lead to an erroneously subordinationist Christology; Origen (or his translator Rufinus) added, therefore, that the begetting of the Son mentioned in Proverbs 8:25 is an eternal begetting, so that we should not suppose that the Father “ever existed, even for a single moment, without begetting this wisdom.” God the Father “always had an only-begotten Son,” claims Origen a Begotten “of the Father’s will,” so the Son is the invisible image and likeness of the Father, so that “there is no time when he did not exist.” In a comment that would reverberate throughout the later Arian controversies, Origen adds: “And when did the image of unspeakable, unnameable, unutterable substance of the Father, his impress, the Word who knows the Father, not exist? Let the man who dares to say, ‘There was a time when the Son was not,’ understand that this is what he will be saying, ‘Once wisdom did not exist, and word did not exist, and life did not exist.”’ There was never a time when the eternal Son of God, the Wisdom of God, did not exist. And so, when in verse 22 Wisdom claims that she was created as “the beginning of his ways,” Origen clarifies that she was “begotten beyond the limits of any beginning that we can speak of or understand.” So, on the one hand, he applied the entire passage of Proverbs 8:22-25 to the pre-incarnate,eternal Son of God, to the generation of the Son, and so to the immanent life of the Trinity. On the other hand, On First Principles also placed the eternal Wisdom of God firmly on the other side of the creator-creature divide: the Father was never without his Wisdom.

(continues)

Proverbs 8:22-25 (AV)
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1497545)

Where is this quote referring to Matthew 28:19 being altered?

this is a quote of Rufinus admitting to changing the writings of Origen.

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

Not trying to stir the pot, but there is not a direct claim in the quote about Matthew 28:19 being changed. Can you point to an exact quote about this? Also, if this is true, how then are you able to defend the veracity and authenticity of the rest of Scripture?