Council of Nicea and Constantinople
- Thread starter Keiw1
- Start date
That is wonderful to show Christ's humanity. Next you can examine the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. Maybe you have heard that the divinity of Christ has been central to the discussion. It gets tiresome that you neglect the center of the debate.
I'm putting a mirror to you and you still can see your self-indictment
You still pretend this is Catholicism. Please learn history before you start trying to speak on it. Otherwise, you are wasting people's time and patience.
You ignored this
- P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.
- Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size.
Wait Tom! How can you use archaeological facts to dispute Keiw1's misconceptions of history? Is that really fair?
The other question is whether Keiw1 says the Peshitta is translated from the Latin.
Shame on me for using facts to dispute him
The consensus within biblical scholarship, although not universal, is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from Biblical Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century CE, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from Koine Greek, probably in the early 5th century.[5][6] This New Testament, originally excluding certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the Harklean Version (616 CE) of Thomas of Harqel.[7][8][9] The New Testament of the Peshitta often reflects the Byzantine text-type, although with some variations.[10][11]
Peshitta - Wikipedia
I saw the Peshitta used in some commentaries of the 1800s. The Peshitta offers an attestation to the early scriptures from a different culture. I'm just not sure what controversies that it will clear up -- except for ones like this.Shame on me for using facts to dispute him
The consensus within biblical scholarship, although not universal, is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from Biblical Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century CE, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from Koine Greek, probably in the early 5th century.[5][6] This New Testament, originally excluding certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the Harklean Version (616 CE) of Thomas of Harqel.[7][8][9] The New Testament of the Peshitta often reflects the Byzantine text-type, although with some variations.[10][11]
Peshitta - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Etheridge has a English translation of the Peshitta
Lamsa - from the Aramaic of the Peshitta
Runningman
Active member
amen.
Runningman
Active member
Jesus is a man with a God he worshipped, prayed to, and depended on just like the rest of his brothers and sisters. Are you copying his ways like he said to?
More denigration of the identity of Christ. You do not understand his ministry on earth and then you use that to deny his deity. You are not following the basics of scripture. It is harder then to get into the nuances. I'm not sure how long you have been reading scripture, but you need to be under the instruction of a good teacher for now.
On earth it is.
I have learned history. Catholicism = 2Thess 2:3--they screwed it all up because Jesus was never with them.
A fragment is not the bible.
Afraid not
What does Jah translate then? Every scholar on earth knows Jah= Jehovah. Why don't you?
Sorry JAH is not Jehovah
You make no sense here. Roman Catholicism only stood out in the 500s. Your eschatology is off quite a bit.
