"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:1156201221.240992.148460@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

"colp" <colp@solder.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:1156147772.739123.250140@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

"Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Your last comment is the key. One person, if the event even
happened
at
all, is bifurcated in the story for the purpose of reading
doctrine
back
into it. Have you read the Bible? If so have you not worked out
how
dodgy the whole thing is?

A way out, wild wild interpration is that Barabbas and Jesus were in
fact
the same person, and the gospel writer has split them to make some
sort
of
metaphorical point.

Not at all. There was no "metaphorical point" to be made by these
ignorant redactors in the first place, to many of whom Aramaic was
unknown and thus erroneous translations.

The "Jesus Barabass" is a cover story to reassure new converts that
the
man they had heard of was not "their Jesus" but another "Jesus son of
the Father" who happened to be imprisoned on the same day."

What a coincidence.

Matthew 27 is notable as it contains a prophetic reference to Zechariah
11 with incorrect attribution to Jeremiah (probably chapter 19) in
verses 9-10.

This reference was probably erroneously added by a scribe at a later
date.

A translator, rather than a scribe.made the addition. The reference to
Jeremiah is absent from the Aramaic Peshitta, but is present in the
Greek.

There you go again: What "Greek?"

Some have it.

Some don't.

Some later scribe inserted the references.

Matthew wouldn't have done it.

And given that the Peshitta wasn't even used until the fifth century, based
on texts from the fourth and fifth century, the text wasn't translated from
Aramaic to Greek--it was translated from Greek to other languages.

There are some 16 instances where Matthew writes "as spoken [or written]
by
the prophet," but, in the majority of them, Matthew doesn't name the
prophet.

He does, however, refer to Isaiah by name.

Which was allowable contextually.

Matthew 27:9-10 is still
notable in that the prophetic reference was added between languages and
the reference was not appropriate to the immediate context.

Not "between languages."

The Matthew we have is from Matthew's Greek document. There are no copies of
the Aramaic.

But the reference to "Jeremy" was probably added by a later scribe, as he
used the colloquial "Jeremy," which was not appropriate.

So someone thought they were doing everyone a favor by inserting the name
of
the prophet and/or an excerpt of that prophet's text that the scribe
thought
was right when, except in specific cases (like Jesus referring to
Daniel),

It was only the name of the prophet that was added amongst the content
of verses 9-10. It is unlikely that such an emendation was due to well
intentioned incompetence.

Right. Matthew probably just wrote, "as was written by the prophet," and the
citation was added later by a well-intentioned, but misinformed, scribe.

Matthew didn't name the prophet.

Matthew knew he was writing to Jews who knew their scriptures, and would
not
have insulted their intelligence by naming the particular prophet.

So why would he have insulted their intelligence by referring to the
prophet Isaiah, and to Jonah, who wasn't even recognised as a prophet?

He probably didn't.

Notice that when the Jewish leaders approach Jesus, they never said "it is
written in prophet x, chapter y, verse z..."

They just said stuff like "Moses said," or "it is written."

It was a breach of etiquette to quote chapter and verse among Jews, and it
was expected that if someone taught theology, they better know their
scriptures without reference to chapter and verse.

(Actually, Paul does the same thing, writing "for it is written" without
giving citations, knowing that citing specific verses is an insult to
Jews.)

Acts refers to the prophet Joel by name.

And Luke probably wasn't a Jew, and not constrained to Jewish etiquette.

Some of the differences between the Peshitta and the Textus Receptus
refer to there being more than one son of man.

God referred to the prophets as "son of man,"

but the intention was to use
the prophets to foreshadow Jesus.

In other words, the prophecies sound like they are directed to that
particular prophet, but the actual point of reference is the Messiah, i.e.
Jesus.

It is significant that
the addition of the name of Jeremiah immediately precedes an account
which could describe an ambiguity involving the the (or a) son of man.

If you mean there are two "sons of men" referred to in Jesus' age, you are
mistaken: Jesus was the only "son of man" to whom anyone was referring.

H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

"Thandarr" <thandarr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156210259.869790.257750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Pastor Dave! Good to see you again.

I suspect what Dante is referring to is the Genesis 6:1-2 passage in
which the sons of God married the daughters of men and begat heroes of
old. I don't know if we are understood to be the descendants of those
sons of God or not.

I'm going to confess confusion again. I have no idea what they're
talking about.

It's simple.

sons of men = the Gentiles.

Rubbish.

El [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he
should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he
spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:19

sons of God = the Adamic sons.

LOL

.. when the sons of Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they
bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of
old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:4

When the two "seeds" got together, that's when the trouble started.

Nevermind all that nonsense about Angels getting it on with men.

What nonsense?