1016 lines
149 KiB
HTML
1016 lines
149 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-gb" lang="en-gb" >
|
|
<head>
|
|
<base href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/235-hebrew-matthew-baptismal-account.html" />
|
|
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
|
|
<meta name="robots" content="index, follow" />
|
|
<meta name="keywords" content="Jesus Words, Jesus Words Only, Jesus Words on Salvation, Did Calvin Murder Servetus, Flaws of Young Earth Science, Ingenious Design, Apostle Paul, False Apostle Paul, Faith Alone, Dispensationalism, Ebionites, Commands of Jesus, Original Gospel of Matthew, Hebrew Matthew" />
|
|
<meta name="title" content="Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account" />
|
|
<meta name="author" content="18ptTR" />
|
|
<meta name="description" content="Jesus' Words as Primary Focus for Christians" />
|
|
<meta name="generator" content="Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Management" />
|
|
<title>Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account</title>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/media/system/js/mootools.js"></script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/media/system/js/caption.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/images/favicon.ico" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/templates/system/css/system.css" type="text/css" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/templates/system/css/general.css" type="text/css" />
|
|
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/template_css.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
|
|
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/nav.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
|
|
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/style1.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
|
|
|
|
<!--[if IE]>
|
|
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/ie.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
|
|
<![endif]-->
|
|
<!--[if IE]>
|
|
<link href="/templates/js_relevant/css/ie.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" />
|
|
<![endif]-->
|
|
<!--[if lte IE 6]>
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
|
img { behavior: url(/templates/js_relevant/js/iepngfix.htc); }
|
|
</style>
|
|
<![endif]-->
|
|
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<div id="main-wrapper">
|
|
|
|
<div id="header_graphic">
|
|
<div class="inside">
|
|
<div id="newsflash"> <div class="moduletable">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<table class="contentpaneopen">
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td valign="top" ><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"The Spirit of the Apostles is</span></span></span></span><strong><em><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> not a guide equal or greater than the Lord</span></span></span></span></em></strong><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">, thus </span></span></span></span><em><strong><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Paul within his letters</span></span></span></span></strong></em><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> does</span></span></span></span><strong><em><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> not have as much authority as has Christ</span></span></span></span></em></strong><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">." (Carlstadt, </span></span></span></span><em><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Canonicis Scripturis</span></span></span></span></em><span><span><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> (1520))</span></span></span></span></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td valign="top" >
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h1><a href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/" title="Relevant">Relevant</a></h1>
|
|
<h2>A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us</h2>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="menubar">
|
|
<div id="navmenu">
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/templates/js_relevant/js/barmenu.js"></script>
|
|
<ul class="menu"><li><a href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/"><span>Home</span></a></li><li class="haschild"><a href="/books.html" class="haschild"><span>Books</span></a><ul><li><a href="/books/jesuswordsonly.html"><span>Jesus' Words Only</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/jesuswordssalvation.html"><span>Jesus' Words on Salvation</span></a></li><li class="haschild"><a href="/books/didcalvinmurderservetus.html" class="child"><span>Did Calvin Murder Servetus?</span></a><ul><li><a href="/books/didcalvinmurderservetus/background-material-did-calvin-murder-servetus.html"><span>Background Material</span></a></li></ul></li><li><a href="/books/hownottosudythebible.html"><span>How Not to Study the Bible</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/flawsofyoungearthscience.html"><span>Flaws of Young Earth Science</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/jesusorpaul.html"><span>Jesus or Paul</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/unintended-disservice.html"><span>Unintended Disservice</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/original-gospel-of-matthew.html"><span>Original Gospel of Matthew</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/commands-of-jesus.html"><span>Commands of Jesus</span></a></li><li><a href="/books/gospel-of-john.html"><span>Gospel of John</span></a></li></ul></li><li id="current" class="active"><a href="/recommendedreading.html"><span>Further Reading</span></a></li><li><a href="/media.html"><span>Media</span></a></li><li class="haschild"><a href="/reviews.html" class="haschild"><span>Reviews</span></a><ul><li><a href="/reviews/jwo-reviews.html"><span>Jesus Words Only</span></a></li><li><a href="/reviews/jwos-reviews.html"><span>Jesus Words on Salvation</span></a></li></ul></li><li><a href="/contactus.html"><span>Contact Us</span></a></li><li><a href="http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/topicindex/753-bookstore.html"><span>Bookstore</span></a></li><li><a href="/topicindex.html"><span>Topic Index</span></a></li><li><a href="/aboutauthor.html"><span>About Author</span></a></li><li><a href="/newsletters.html"><span>Newsletters</span></a></li></ul>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<div id="mainbody">
|
|
<div id="showcasetop"> </div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<table width="940" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td id="leftcol" valign="top" width="200">
|
|
<div class="inside">
|
|
<div class="moduleS1">
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h3>Search</h3>
|
|
<form action="index.php" method="post">
|
|
<div class="searchS1">
|
|
<input name="searchword" id="mod_search_searchword" maxlength="20" alt="Search" class="inputboxS1" type="text" size="20" value="search..." onblur="if(this.value=='') this.value='search...';" onfocus="if(this.value=='search...') this.value='';" /> </div>
|
|
<input type="hidden" name="task" value="search" />
|
|
<input type="hidden" name="option" value="com_search" />
|
|
<input type="hidden" name="Itemid" value="3" />
|
|
</form> </div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="moduleS1">
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h3>Questions?</h3>
|
|
|
|
Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"<br /><br />
|
|
|
|
<form name="s5_quick_contact" method="post" action="">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<input class="inputbox" id="namebox" onclick="s5_qc_clearname()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearname()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Name..." name="name"></input><br />
|
|
<input class="inputbox" id="emailbox" onclick="s5_qc_clearemail()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearemail()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Email..." name="email"></input><br />
|
|
<input class="inputbox" id="subjectbox" onclick="s5_qc_clearsubject()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearsubject()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Subject..." name="subject"></input><br />
|
|
<textarea id="messagebox" rows="" cols="" class="inputbox textarea" onclick="s5_qc_clearbody()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearbody()" style="font-size:11px; font-family:arial; overflow:auto;width:80%; height:55px" name="message">Your Message...</textarea><br />
|
|
<input class="inputbox" id="spambox" onclick="s5_qc_clearspam()" onfocus="s5_qc_clearspam()" style="font-weight:bold; font-size:11px; font-family:arial; width:80%" type="text" value="Enter The Code 6354" name="verif_box"></input><br />
|
|
|
|
|
|
<input id="email_address" type="hidden" value="" name="email_address"></input>
|
|
|
|
<input class="button" type="button" onclick="s5_qc_submit()" value="Send Message" ></input>
|
|
</form>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
|
|
// <![CDATA[
|
|
|
|
var s5_qc_spam_text = document.getElementById("spambox").value;
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_clearbody() {
|
|
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value == "Your Message...") {
|
|
document.getElementById("messagebox").value="";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_clearname() {
|
|
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value == "Name...") {
|
|
document.getElementById("namebox").value="";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_clearemail() {
|
|
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value == "Email...") {
|
|
document.getElementById("emailbox").value="";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_clearsubject() {
|
|
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value == "Subject...") {
|
|
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value="";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("spambox").value = s5_qc_spam_text;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_clearspam() {
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value == s5_qc_spam_text) {
|
|
document.getElementById("spambox").value="";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("namebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("namebox").value = "Name...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("emailbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("emailbox").value = "Email...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("messagebox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("messagebox").value = "Your Message...";
|
|
}
|
|
if (document.getElementById("subjectbox").value.length < 1) {
|
|
document.getElementById("subjectbox").value = "Subject...";
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_isValidEmail(str_email) {
|
|
if (str_email.indexOf(".") > 2 && str_email.indexOf("@") > 0) {
|
|
alert('Your email is now being submitted - Thank you!');
|
|
document.s5_quick_contact.submit();
|
|
}
|
|
else {
|
|
alert('Your email address is not valid, please check again - Thank you!');
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function s5_qc_submit() {
|
|
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value == s5_qc_spam_text || document.getElementById("subjectbox").value == "Subject..." || document.getElementById("namebox").value == "Name..." || document.getElementById("emailbox").value == "Email..." || document.getElementById("messagebox").value == "Your Message...") {
|
|
alert('All fields are required, please complete the form - Thank you!');
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (document.getElementById("spambox").value != "6354") {
|
|
alert('Your spam verification answer is incorrect.');
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
var s5_message_holder = document.getElementById("messagebox").value;
|
|
var s5_first_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(0);
|
|
var s5_second_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(1);
|
|
var s5_third_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(2);
|
|
var s5_fourth_message_char = s5_message_holder.charAt(3);
|
|
|
|
if (s5_first_message_char == "<") {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_first_message_char == "w" && s5_second_message_char == "w" && s5_third_message_char == "w") {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_first_message_char == "h" && s5_second_message_char == "t" && s5_third_message_char == "t") {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (s5_message_holder.indexOf("s5_qc_null") >= 0) {
|
|
return false;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
else {
|
|
document.getElementById("email_address").value = "info@jesuswordsonly.com";
|
|
var email_str = document.getElementById("emailbox").value;
|
|
s5_qc_isValidEmail(email_str);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// ]]>
|
|
</script>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="moduleS1">
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<h3>Recommendations</h3>
|
|
<p><a href="/recommendedreading/401-music-store-manager.html">Only Jesus</a> (great song by Big Daddy)</p>
|
|
<p><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/jwoogm-20?node=1&page=2">What Did Jesus Say?</a> (2012) - 7 topics </p>
|
|
<p>None above affiliated with me</p> </div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="module">
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<a href="/books/jesuswordsonly.html"><img alt="JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall" src="/images/stories/JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall.jpg" width="116" height="117" /></a> </div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="module">
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<a href="/books/jesuswordssalvation.html"><img alt="JesusWordsSalv-crop2" src="/images/stories/JesusWordsSalv-crop2.jpg" width="114" height="146" /></a> </div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="module">
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<div>
|
|
<a href="/component/content/3-didcalvinmurderservetus/26-calvinfreebookonline.html"><img src="/images/stories/DidCalvinMurderServetusM.jpg" alt="DidCalvinMurderServetusM" height="NaN" width="120" /></a> </div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td id="maincol" valign="top">
|
|
<div id="breadcrumbs">
|
|
<span class="breadcrumbs pathway">
|
|
<a href="https://jesuswordsonly.com/" class="pathway">Home</a> <img src="/templates/js_relevant/images/arrow.png" alt="" /> Further Reading</span>
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<table class="contentpaneopen">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td valign="top">
|
|
<h1><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Baptismal Account in Matthew and Luke:</span></h1>
|
|
<h1><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><span style="color: #0000ff;">God Quotes Psalm 2 Over Jesus To Convey He Is Messiah</span>. </span></h1>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Introduction </span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">I. Overview</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Long before Christmas was first celebrated under Constantine in 336 AD (<a href="https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-christmas-in-december#:~:text=The%20church%20in%20Rome%20began,weakening%20the%20established%20pagan%20celebrations.">link</a>), the only other festival of the very early church besides Passover was the Celebration of God's Epiphany (divine presence) over Christ at his Baptism. It was a "very very early feast," as explained by Catholics in <strong>Want to Know the History of the Feast of the Epiphany?</strong> at this <a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/want-to-know-the-history-behind-todays-feast-of-the-epiphany-75968">link.</a> Later the visit of the Magi was added. This element over time came to "overshadow... the other elements commemorated in the Epiphany." (See "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_the_Lord#:~:text=Originally%20the%20baptism%20of%20Christ,a%20distinct%20feast%20from%20Epiphany.">Baptism of the Lord</a>," Wikipedia.) </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Why were the Baptism events of Jesus important initially, but over time replaced by focus upon the Magi? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Or perhaps we should ask why was the Baptism of Jesus such a big deal early in the church? Didn't the Father simply say there: "This is my son in whom I am well pleased?" </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">What else was said that is of any importance?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"> In the Hebrew Matthew of 38 AD [<strong>Blair's Chronological Tables</strong> (1856) at <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Blair_s_Chronological_Tables_Revised_and/6Cc9AAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=blair%20chronological%20table%201856&pg=PA153&printsec=frontcover&bsq=hebrew%20matthew">153</a>, translated to Greek in 62 AD - at page <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Blair_s_Chronological_Tables_Revised_and/6Cc9AAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=blair%20chronological%20table%201856&pg=PA157&printsec=frontcover&bsq=hebrew%20matthew">157</a>], there is an important variant. It is a different baptismal account at Matthew 3:17. In that earliest version of that Matthew, God's voice is heard from heaven saying "<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘</span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Today I have begotten You</strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">.’ (Epiphanius, </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Panarion</strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;"> 30.13.7) [</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_Gospel_of_Matthew" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Wikipedia</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">] </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">More on this below. </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">This was a big deal because God is quoting Psalm 2 which addresses the <strong>Messiah</strong> (translated in English as Annointed One). In the Psalm, Yahweh says "This Day I have begotten thee." Then God promises this Son in Psalm 2 that the son will one day rule over all the kingdoms of the earth. God then commands the nations to pay homage to this royal son by saying "Kiss the son." </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">More on that later too.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Hence, Yahweh from heaven by quoting this passage of Psalm 2 over Jesus at His baptism signified three traits about Jesus. The master </span></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px; background-color: transparent;">was:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px; background-color: transparent;">1. Messiah -- Annointed One</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px; background-color: transparent;">2. a Son of God begotten as such at the Baptism; and </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px; background-color: transparent;">3. The eventual King of all humanity (not just Israel).</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">The last item means Yahweh always intended that Jesus was to include the Gentiles in the Son's kingdom. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">As we shall see below, this earliest support of the Baptismal "This Day" Language was not only in the Hebrew Matthew from 38 AD, but also was quoted as early as 70 AD by Clement. It was repeated by Justin in 165 AD. Again by Tertullian in 207 AD. It appeared again in 235 AD in the Disaschalia (The Teaching of the Apostles). It was also in the Old Latin translations from the 200s. But it did not survive in the Latin Vulgate of 405 AD which Jerome started in 382 AD.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"> Below we will learn the likely reason. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">We also shall see that although orthodoxy omitted it from Matthew and Luke sometime after 383 AD in the Latin Vulgate translations from 405 AD, amazingly it is still validated by two quotes in the Epistle to the Hebrews in the present NT, including <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+5%3A5&version=ESV">Hebrews 5:5</a> ("him [i.e., the Father] <strong>said to him</strong> [i.e., Jesus]: 'This day I have begotten thee, etc.'") <br /></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Most important, this Baptismal "This day" Language is also confirmed as unquestionably still present in both the Greek Matthew and Luke as of 383 AD as a result of Augustine's correspondence with Bishop Faustus, as fully presented below.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">By way of a brief summary here, as late as 383 AD Bishop Faustus could quote the Baptism "This day" Language to Augustine as present in both the Greek Matthew and Luke to disprove the "eternal son" doctrine derived from the Nicene Creed of 325 AD. That creed opens that Jesus was "born <strong>before all ages</strong>" and concludes he was "begotten <strong>not made</strong>." (See <a href="https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed">link</a>.) Augustine had no adequate reply except to mumble that "some say" that "This Day I have begotten thee" is missing in earlier Greek codices of Luke. But he cited no examples, or where they could be found. It was just words. And he said nothing likewise about the same language in Matthew which Bishop Faustus equally relied upon. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">More on that later as well.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"> It is thus clear both the Greek Matthew and Luke originally read at Jesus' Baptism that the Father speaks from heaven "This Day I have begotten thee." </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">II. What Might Explain The Succesful Elimination in English Translations of These Words?</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">However, what happened to explain why the KJV does not have "this day I have begotten thee" is hard to fathom unless dogma was guiding their principles. This is explained in more depth in <a href="/recommendedreading/860-manuscript-background-on-baptism-of-jesus.html">Manuscript Background on the Baptismal Account,</a> but here it is most succinctly. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">There is only evidence that the Baptismal "This Day I have begotten" was in fact in the oldest Greek NT dating from the 400s available and utilized by the KJV translators. However, instead of following it, the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate of 405 AD which omitted this language. (See the last cited article for links to academic quality proof.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Why did the KJV ignore "this day I have begotten thee" in the oldest Greek NT even though in their hands?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">To understand this, we need to go back to 1562. This is when the Codex Bezae -- the oldest known Greek NT from the 400s -- was stolen from a monestary in France. It ended up with Theodore Beza in Geneva, Switzerland. Beza was a major leader of the Calvinist Protestants who ran Geneva at the time. Sadly, this Codex Beza has a gap -- it is missing a few pages -- representing where Matthew 1:20 to 6:20 would otherwise have been. Hence, the baptismal account in Matthew is on a lost page. (Again, this is in the last link in academic quality proof.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">However, Luke is in tact on the Codez Bezae. It shows Luke 3:22 has </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">"this day I have begotten thee</strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">" at Jesus' Baptism. Presumably the Baptismal "This day" Language was originally also in Matthew 3:17. This makes sense, because then it would match the form of both the Greek and Latin New Testament known as of 383 AD when Bishop Faustus was using Matthew 3:17 and Luke 3:22 to defeat Augustine's claims in favor of the eternal son doctrine. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">What is a mystery -- which we propose a solution to below -- is why the KJV omits rendering it when it was present in the Codex Beza -- a part of the Textus Receptus upon which the KJV based its translation. (See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus">link</a>.) Otherwise, the Textus Receptus first assembled by Erasmus in the early 1500s only had two eleventh century Greek New Testaments to utilize for translation. See <a href="/recommendedreading/808-origin-of-textus-receptus-basis-of-kjv-bible.html">link</a>. (We are never told if those versions lack "This day I have begotten thee," as we shall see later.) Unquestionably the oldest Greek text then known -- the Codex Bezae -- had the advantage over those two versions from 800 years later if they did lack this language - a fact no one ever affirms is the case.</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Alas this Greek Codex Bezae from the 400s with "This day I have begotten thee" at Jesus' baptism was ignored by the English translators of the KJV. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Why also did the KJV ignore the Old Latin translations that predated the Vulgate Jerome prepared about 405 AD? For the earlier Old Latin texts have the Baptismal "This day" Language in both Matt 3:17 and Luke 3:22. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">More on the Old Latin texts below -- with academic quality proof. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">We theorize that the Augustine-Faustus argument in 383 AD appears to be the crux of what explains what happened. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Also, what is striking is how scholarship dances around this topic. There is <strong>no mention</strong> of the Baptismal "This day" language as<strong> missing</strong> in the next major surviving Greek New Testament from the 500s known as the Codex Alexandrinus. See <a href="/recommendedreading/860-manuscript-background-on-baptism-of-jesus.html">Manuscript Background on the Baptismal Account.</a> What explains this silence? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Oddly, the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek NT has<strong> never been apparently translated into English except <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30636503452&cm_mmc=ggl-_-COM_Shopp_Rare-_-naa-_-naa&gclid=Cj0KCQjwoaz3BRDnARIsAF1RfLf9FCGG_eMVLZqztNfidGfHHjx7fhXkRB5b0Rozrbd0_WcNcI_2AGUaAloaEALw_wcB">Mark's Gospel</a></strong>. Yet, the fascimiles from the British Museum <a href="https://archive.org/details/CodexAlexandrinus/page/n11/mode/2up">online</a> appear adequate for a scholar familiar with the Byzantine text type of Greek to be able to do so. As a result, we have apparently no scholar telling us <strong>one way or the other</strong> of the <strong>presence</strong> or <strong>absence</strong> of the Baptismal 'This day' language in the Codex Alexandrinus.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">I would predict it is there too, just as in the Codez Bezae -- the oldest manuscript just a hundred years earlier. I would further predict it is in the two 12th Century Greek NT material which the KJV translators had in their possession because no one ever says it is missing in such manuscripts. From what the KJV translators had, we only know the Latin Vulgate of 405 AD is lacking "This day I have begotten thee." </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">So what explains our English Bible lacking the Baptismal "This Day" language? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">It appears that the post-1562 translators did not follow the Greek of the Codex Beza -- an integral part of the Textus Receptus for a specific reason. They continued to revert to the Latin Vulgate from 405 AD which omits "This day" Language from <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/mat003.htm">Matthew 3:17</a> and Luke <a href="https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk003.htm">3:22</a>. The reason for a Latin version doing so would therefore be consistent with Rufinus' theory in that era that the Roman Catholic Church has authority to delete texts that would otherwise upset doctrine -- obviously Nicean-derived doctrine such as the "eternal son" doctrine. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">More later on Rufinus saying such deletion is necessary as a policy to eradicate earlier views which were then deemed heresy.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">However, why would the Calvinist editor of the KJV not utilize the oldest known Greek New Testament at that time - Codex Beza to correct the Latin Vulgate of 405 AD? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">(Why do I say the editor was Calvinist? Because in 1604, John Rainolds -- the leader of Puritan Calvinists of England -- asked King James to commision a new Bible. The King did so. <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Rainolds was the main editor until he died in 1609. Was this a coincidence that Rainolds was a Calvinist? Or was it to revise the text to suit Calvinism? Well, we need to know a background on King James. One year earlier,</span> King James' <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">rule in 1603 was expanded to England from only Scotland where the Calvinist-Presbyterian Church was the only official church. With James' rule now expanded over England, Calvinists could make their move on the Bible in English, and make only one dition of the Bible "authorized." It became known as "The Authorized Version" to make it appear as the only one authorized to read in church. </span>That is how the King James Bible originated. Later, Rainolds was replaced by Miles Smith who "like Rainolds was a Calvinist." Gustavus Paine, <strong>The Learned Men</strong> (1959) at 49.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">And why would the KJV not revert at least back to the Old Latin texts and all the lacunae (quotes in commentary) to fix this error in the later Vulgate of 405 AD?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">The answer comes easy. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Protestants KJV translators would choose Latin over Greek texts on this verse because the earlier Greek disturbs the "eternal son" doctrine. Even more so this is true for Calvinists such as the KJV primary editor who was Calvinist. Why so? Because in 1553, Servetus was executed at Geneva upon Calvin's legal complaint (as he confessed later drafting) based principally upon Servetus denying Jesus was the "<strong>eternal son of God</strong>." See "<a href="https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/didcalvinmurderservetus/330-did-calvin-murder-servetus-knol.html">Servetus & Calvin</a>," Knol Encyclopedia (Google).</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">The "eternal son" doctrine is thus not only a firm fixture of Roman Catholicism after Nicea, but also of Calvinist Protestantism. In this doctrine, the belief is that Jesus is "the second person of the Triune God [who] has <strong>eternally existed as the Son...</strong> [as] affirmed in the Nicene Creed." (<a href="https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html">GotQuestions</a>.) See also the Nicene Creed (Jesus was "begotten b<strong>efore all ages</strong>" but also "begotten <strong>not made</strong>" at this <a href="https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed">link</a>.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">When Servetus was killed for his denial that an "eternal son" makes any logical sense, the Protestant recovery of Codex Beza in 1562 was ten years in the future. Thus, when it arrived at Beza's Geneva in 1562, and this passage shockingly vindicated Servetus's view of 1553, one can well-imagine that Beza would <strong>not</strong> spread this "good" news. Nor would the Calvinist Editor in Chief of the KJV wish to include a verse which would embarass Calvin's memory. "Better to use the latest Latin Vulgate," would be the response one would anticipate from that party. </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"></span></p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">III. Confessed Pious Frauds to Protect New Orthodoxy</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">What explains why after 383 AD, the Latin Vulgate in 405 AD started to omit "This Day I have begotten thee" despite its presence in the earlier Old Latin texts?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Evidently because these words were contrary to the "eternal son" doctrine that Augustine in 383 AD could not otherwise successfully dispute. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Thus, a vigorous counter-response was necessary. In that era, Roman Catholic authorities of orthodoxy shamelessly admitted elsewhere eliminating portions of a text they were translating which were "discordant" to "our ears" (see e.g., <a href="/recommendedreading/832-rufinus-corrected-works-he-deemed-heretical.html">Rufinus' debate with Jerome</a>). </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Rufinus (died <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannius_Rufinus">411 AD</a>) -- the main translator of Greek to Latin of Christian texts of prior eras -- boasted in his introduction to Origen's writings that he "deleted" portions of Origen's words in translation to Latin because they are "discordant" to our "ears" -- meaning the present orthodoxy. See <a href="/recommendedreading/832-rufinus-corrected-works-he-deemed-heretical.html">link</a>. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Incidentally, such Latin translations by Rufinus and other Catholic translators were the kiss of death to any retention of any Greek earlier texts. Origen's Greek writings -- a staggering large amount of material -- are entirely 'lost.' His original Greek only survives if someone quoted him in Greek. See <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Origen">link</a>.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">So if any Greek text of the NT appears later than 325 AD -- the year of the Nicean council -- without "this day I have begotten" thee, who can doubt this negation of the "eternal son" doctrine" would be "ripped out" by means of "deleting" whatever is "discordant" to our "ears," as Rufinus put it? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">And there is a commonality of the reason for such self-confessed "pious frauds." It always centers on the trinity doctrine, or the related "eternal son" doctrine. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">At least since 383 AD (if not before), Roman Catholic "translators" appeared to do whatever was necessary to protect the Nicene Creed of 325 AD that claims Jesus was "begotten <strong>before all ages</strong>" but also was "begotten <strong>not made</strong>." (See Nicene Creed at this <a href="https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed">link</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">For example, Sir Isaac Newton -- one of the greatest Christians and minds of all time -- detected such measures, and called them "pious frauds." He exposed Roman Catholic authorities committed such frauds to advance the trinity at 1 Tim. 3:16 (see this <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_3#Verse_16">link</a>) and at <a href="/recommendedreading/848-servetus-in-line-with-discovery-by-erasmus-of-trinitarian-fraud-in-1-john-5-vv-7-8.html">1 John 3:7</a> (see this <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture">link</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1"></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">IV. The Baptism of Jesus in the Hebrew Version of Matthew.</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">So what did the Hebrew version of Matthew say on this point -- the original version of our Gospel of Matthew? </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">This Matthew, Jerome later explained, was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek. Jerome in 393 AD explained the Ebionites-Nazarenes claimed they still maintained custody of that original copy from Matthew in a library at Caesarea. He spent a long period with them translating the Hebrew Matthew into Greek and Latin. Alas, those works too are now "lost." See <a href="/recommendedreading/333-original-gospel-of-matthew-knol.html">"Hebrew Matthew" Knol Encyclopedia</a>.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Epiphanius recorded near <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion">375 AD</a> that this original <strong>Hebrew</strong> Matthew had God speak from heaven at the baptism "today I have begotten thee."</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">After saying many things, this Gospel [of Matthew to the Hebrews] continues: “After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And<strong> a voice from Heaven</strong> said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘<strong>Today I have begotten You</strong>.’ “Immediately a great light shone around the place; and John, seeing it, said to Him, ‘Who are you, Lord? And again a voice from Heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’ Then John, falling down before Him, said, ‘I beseech You, Lord, baptize me!’ But He forbade him saying, ‘Let it be so; for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.’” (Epiphanius, <strong>Panarion</strong> 30.13.7) [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_Gospel_of_Matthew">Wikipedia</a>]</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; color: #494a44; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"> Jerome apparently tried to keep the original Hebrew Matthew in this passage, but toned down Epiphanius who included "This day I have begotten thee." Jerome modified this somewhat to appear as "You are my first begotten son." Here is Jerome's version, worded carefully to guard against negating the "eternal son" doctrine</span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">: </span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px 30px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">In the <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Gospel written in the Hebrew script</span> that the Nazarenes read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, for God is Spirit and where the Spirit resides, there is freedom. Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: “When the Lord came up out of the water the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon Him and rested on Him saying, ‘My Son, in all the prophets was I waiting for You that You should come and I might rest in You. For You are My rest. <span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">You are </span><span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px; font-weight: bold;">My first begotten Son</span><span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;"> that prevails forever.’</span>” (Jerome, <strong>Commentary on Isaiah</strong> 4) [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_Gospel_of_Matthew" style="color: #517291;">Wikipedia</a>] </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">It is sad that the corrupting influence of strict trinitarianism of that age would apparently let Jerome modify what Epiphanius witnessed with his own eyes, and erase the most key part of the passage: Yahweh quotes Psalm 2. This deleted language was the same as God saying Jesus is Messiah and Son of God -- our future king. Protecting the trinity doctrine, and its "eternal son" doctrine, left Christians without understanding why Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:16 that he correctly said Jesus was "Messiah and Son of God." Peter was lifting that from a Psalm 2 concept of Jesus. However, we are left in the dark because the verses to tell us this in both Matthew and Luke were suppressed in the Latin Vulgate of 405 AD by Jerome himself. They were likewise ignored in 1611 by the KJV when it had the chance to fix this when the Codex Bezae was taken from a monestary in 1562. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">But this passage let's us recognize that whenever the trinity doctrine, and its eternal son offspring doctrine, were threatened, texts were re-written or deleted or lost.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">As God speaks about in <a href="https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/8-8.htm">Jeremiah 8:8</a> of similar moves in an age past: </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px 60px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">"How do you say we are wise, and the Law of Yahweh is with us. But behold, the <strong>false pen</strong> of the scribes has worked <strong>falsely.</strong>" (World Englsh Bible.)</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></p>
|
|
<h1><span style="font-size: 18pt;">IV. Historical Evidence That "This Day I have begotten thee" is Correct</span></h1>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt;">A. Old Mss. of Matthew</span></h3>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The baptismal account with “this day I have begotten thee” appears in "</span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">the Old Latin" Bibles meaning <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate">pre-382 AD</a>. Jerome was engaged by the pope in 382 AD to replace them with a new Latin Bible. It was issued for the first time in 405 AD. (E.B. Nicholson, <strong>The Gospel according to the Hebrews</strong> (1879) at <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=QVAVAAAAYAAJ&dq=some%20things%20out%20of%20the%20Gospel%20according%20to%20the%20Hebrews%20and%20the%20Syriac&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=juda&f=false">40</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><img src="/images/stories/JWO_Online/Jesus_as_young_man.jpg" alt="Jesus as young man" width="76" height="92" style="float: right;" /></span></p>
|
|
<h3><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt;">B. Luke 3:22 In Old Manuscripts</span></h3>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The baptismal account of Jesus in Luke 3:22 in old manuscripts likewise had this account that the Father spoke from heaven to Jesus: "This day I have begotten you."</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Also, in "Codex Bezae and most of the old Latin manuscripts...the voice instead cites Psalm 2:7: </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">'This day I have begotten thee.</strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">" (Barbara Aland, Joël Delobel, </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">New Testament textual criticism, exegesis, and early church history</strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;"> (Peeters, 1994) at </span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4xXSlE_ZvcC&lpg=PA121&ots=K380wpl4Fq&dq=juvencus%20this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">120</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;"> (article by B. Ehrman, referencing Luke 3:22.</span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">)</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">A modern study Bible comments on Luke 3:22: "Other ancient authorities read You are my Son,<strong> today I have begotten you</strong>." (Wayne A. Meeks, Jouette M. Bassler, <strong>The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version</strong> (HarperCollins: 1997) at <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=aMkEa-Z4shEC&lpg=RA1-PA1962&ots=SWWdDM1c0V&dq=%22Other%20ancient%20authorities%20read%20You%20are%20my%20Son%22&pg=RA1-PA1962#v=onepage&q=%22Other%20ancient%20authorities%20read%20You%20are%20my%20Son%22&f=false">1962</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The New American commentary reads: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased: this is the best attested [i.e., most numerous] reading in the Greek manuscripts. The <strong>Western</strong> reading, ‘You are my Son, this day <strong>I have begotten you</strong>,’ is derived from Psalm 2:7.” <a href="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke3.htm">http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke3.htm</a> (last accessed 2005.)</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This reference to a "Western" text that reads "begotten thee" is because it appears in the Greek Western type text known as Codex D <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Codex-Bezae-D">also known as Codez Bezae</a>. It dates from the 400s. It is called Codex Beza because after being stolen in 1562 from a monastic library in Lyons, France, it was given to the Calvinist scholar Beza who gave it to a library in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae">1581</a>. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;">C.<strong> Augustine Could Not Win Eternal Son Argument in 383 AD Due to Manuscript Evidence</strong></span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;">This revised text only appears in Latin after Bishop Faustus of Mileve in a scholarly exchange with Augustine in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_of_Mileve">383 AD</a> quoted from both Matthew and Luke to shred the "eternal" son of God doctrine. That doctrine was derived from the Nicene Creed statement that Jesus was "begotten not made" -- to be understood to mean an eternal son. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"> The <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Faustus-Augustine exchange appears in Schaff’s <strong>Augustin</strong>: </span><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.xxv.html?highlight=this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee#highlight" style="color: #517291; outline: none; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The Writings Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;"> (1890)(CCEL 2020) Book XXIII at 313.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Faustus said to Augustine -- beginning first as to Matthew: </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px 60px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">"The Catholic doctrine is well-known, and it is <strong>as unlike Matthew's representation</strong> as it is unlike the truth." Id., Para. 2. "It is what Matthew says, if Matthew is the real author. The words '<strong>Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee'</strong> ... is what is written; and <strong>if you believe</strong> this doctrine, you must be called <strong>a Matthean</strong>, for you will <strong>no longer be a Catholic</strong>....As for you, your only alternative is to deny that those statements were made, as they <strong>appear to be by Matthew</strong>, or to allow that <strong>you have abandoned the faith of the apostles</strong>." " Id. Para. 2.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">As to Luke, Faustus quotes Luke too saying the same: </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px 60px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">"when about thirty-years old, according to <strong>Luke</strong>, when <strong>also the voice</strong> was heard saying to him: 'Thou art my son, this Day I have begotten thee." Id.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 90px;"> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;">Obviously, both passages as existed at the time of Faustus were erased as a result of Augustine's debate. Augustine implicitly conceded <strong>no</strong> present manuscript of which he personally knew did <strong>not</strong> support Faustus. Instead, Augustine could only claim that some "<strong>say</strong>" that there are earlier Greek codices that lack the language in Luke. However, Augustine did not say he saw them, or knew of them as a fact; he only alluded to some </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">un</span></strong><strong>identified person</strong>(s) "say" there are versions of Luke missing these statements. Augustine never said anything to support likewise there is any one who "says" some Greek manuscripts of Matthew lack this Baptismal "This day" language. Most of Augustine's rebuttal was to conflate the issue with the validity of the virgin birth account, as if that addressed the same issue. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;">More on that below in sub-part D.</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;"></span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;"></span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, these two passages from Matthew and Luke with "this day I have begotten thee" were removed in Latin after the 383 AD dispute between Faustus and Augustine. This was to prevent the church to allow these passages to negate emerging doctrine that Christ was an eternal son, i.e., derived from the Nicene Creed of 325 AD that spoke of a son "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed#:~:text=begotten%2C%20not%20made%2C%20of%20one%20Being%20with%20the%20Father%3B,suffered%20death%20and%20was%20buried.">begotten not made</a>." This was deduced to mean Jesus was an immortal being equal to God from all eternity -- an eternal companion of Father God.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 29px; font-weight: normal; font-size: 20px; color: #76756a; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: #ffffff;"><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; color: #0000ff;">D Augustine Responds Feebly That Some "say" some Manuscripts Only Might Not Contain 'This day I have begotten thee'</span></strong></h3>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Throckmorton in <strong>Gospel Parallels</strong> (1992) at 14 [<a href="https://airtable.com/shrFroj8MyH80FqBG">PDF of page 14</a>] lists some of the sources for "This day I have begotten thee." He lists - "D [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae">Codex Beza from 400s</a>] it[alic aka pre-<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina">382</a> Latin], Justin [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr">died 165 AD</a>], Clement [written pre-70 AD; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I">died 99 AD</a> - more below], Origen [<a href="https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tDP1TcwLUgqM2D0EskvykxPzVPIT1NIzEmtSMxLKcpMBACkYwrM&q=origen+of+alexandria&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS734US734&oq=origen&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46j0l3j46j0.4006j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">died 253 AD</a>], <strong>Augustine</strong>, Gospel of the Ebionites [aka the Hebrew Matthew]." </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Throckmorton overlooked Tertullian in 207 AD. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px; color: #494a44; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Tertullian in a passage where he mocksd any idea that Jesus as the Son was simultaneously also God uses this language "This day I have begotten thee" so as to refute Jesus is God. (Bishop Faustus made the same point with Augustine in 383 AD, but more on that later.) Here is cogent reasoning so easily forgotten:</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px 30px; color: #494a44; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">I bid you also observe, that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, '<strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.</span></strong>' If you want me to believe<em><strong> </strong></em><strong>Him to be both the Father and the Son</strong> [<em>i.e.</em>, simultaneously two persons but each is God] show me some other passage where it is declared, <span style="color: #ff0000;">'<strong>The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself</strong></span>;' or again, 'Before the morning did I<strong> <strong>beget</strong><em> </em></strong>myself;' and likewise, 'I the Lord possessed Myself in the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did<strong><em> </em>I beget</strong> myself;' and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so? (Tertullian, <em>Latin Christianity</em> (Scaff ed.) Ch. <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xi.html" style="color: #517291;">XI</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">We will explore below these early quotes of Justin, Clement and Origen.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">But why does Throckmorton mention Augustine?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">First, because Augustine in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_of_Mileve">383 AD</a> acknowledges to Festus in a mutual correspondence that "this day I have begotten thee" is <strong>presen</strong>t in "some codices."</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Second, Throckmorton recognizes Augustine did not in fact prove to Festus it was missing in any Greek present or earlier text. Instead, in the correspondence with Festus, Augustine simply says instead "it is <strong>SAID</strong> not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices..." of Luke.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">However, Augustine does not say he knows of any ancient Greek codex of Luke that is lacking "this day I have begotten thee." Instead of proof, he offers an <strong>unattributed</strong> claim that some 'say' it is not in SOME earlier Greek codices of Luke. Augustine offered no scholarly verification of which he was certainly capable of easily checking at Rome. The entire quote is worth reading. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">Augustine in <strong>In De Cons. Evang.</strong> 2,31 writes to Festus:</p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; padding-left: 30px;">But once more, with respect to that rendering which is contained in some codices of the Gospel according to <strong>Luke</strong>, and which bears that the words heard in the heavenly voice were those that are written in the Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee" [Ps 2:7]; <strong>although it is said not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices</strong>, yet if it can be established by any copies worthy of credit, what results but that we suppose both voices to have been heard from heaven, in one or other verbal order?</p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">The full Latin and English translation of this quote comes from Wieland Willker, <strong>A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels</strong> Vol. 3 Luke (Bremen: 2015) at Luke 3:22. Willker made the entire <a href="http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf">PDF </a>available free online.</p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">This actual quote from Augustine destroys claims such as those by Wasserman. He tries to criticize Bart Ehrman, saying "Ehrman does not mention the important remark by Augustine that the most ancient Greek MSS <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>do not attest</strong> </span>to the second reading," <em>i.e.</em>, "this day I have begotten thee." (Tommy Wasserman, Ph.D., “Misquoting Manuscripts? – The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Revisited,” <strong>The Making of Christianity: Conflicts, Contacts, and Constructions.</strong> (Ed. Magnus Zetterholm och Samuel Byrskog) (ConBNTS 47. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012) pp. 325-50, at <a href="http://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Eharman.pdf">335</a>.)</p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">But Wasserman clearly overstates what Augustine said. Rather, Augustine's actual words say that supposedly even "some" Greek codices are "<span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>said</strong></span>" to lack the language in Luke -- but certainly it had not been verified by Augustine despite his abundant access to those earlier codices.</p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, Augustine's actual language strengthens the case that "this Day I have begotten thee" is original. Wasserman's exaggeration tries to provide the missing assertion that would be the minimally necessary rebuttal to take Augustine's assertion seriously. That is, to accept Augustine's position, he must have said "I reviewed earlier codices, and I found one at the library of ____ that lacks the language," and "its custodians date it to _____." None of that appears. </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">At the same time, Augustine was strongly motivated to destroy the anti-Trinitarian position of Festus who exploited this verse being still present in Matthew and Luke in a respected edition as of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_of_Mileve">383 AD</a>. So Augustine obviously had researched the earlier codices, and he could not affirm any had omitted "This day I have begotten thee." The best he could do is make a non-descript claim that <strong>some say</strong> it is omitted in some earlier Greek codices of Luke. This confirms that the respected text as of Augustine's day, upon which Festus relied, said in Luke as well as Matthew "This Day I have begotten thee."</p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">At least Wasserman is wrong that Augustine says that "most ancient Greek MSS <strong>do not attest</strong>" to the "this day I have begotten thee." That is clearly an incorrect synopsis of Augustine's actual words.</p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt;">The truth is that Augustine was routed by Festus. Augustine resorted to bottom-of-the barrell proof, ineffectually trying to conjure doubt without any proof when it was certainly available to him had there been any such earlier codex that lacked "this Day I have begotten thee." </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 29px; font-weight: normal; font-size: 20px; color: #76756a; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt;">E. Ehrman's Weighing of NT Manuscripts</span></strong></span></h3>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Ehrman in <strong>Orthodox Corruption of Scripture</strong> (Oxford U. </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Press, 1996) at 62-63 says even though "this day I have </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">begotten thee" is not in P4 [only <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4">a Lucan gospel</a>] estimated to be from the </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">third century [but also to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_4">the fourth century</a>], the </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">evidence </span></span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span>before and through the D manuscript [Codex Beza from the </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span>300s] supports strongly that t</span></span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;">he </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;">correct original of Luke says "This Day I have</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">begotten thee." </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">In the same manner, in 2003 Ehrman commented again on this </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">variant in <span style="color: #000000;"><strong>Lost Christianities</strong></span> (2003) at <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lost_Christianities/URdACxKubDIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=one+proto-orthodox+alteration+that+proved+remarkably+successful&pg=PA223&printsec=frontcover">223</a>, pointing out that </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">this alteration proved “remarkably successful,” even though </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times; background-color: #ffffff;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">“the text is found in virtually all our oldest witnesses....”</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Others list for Luke 3:22's reading "This day have I begotten </span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">thee" the </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">following:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Bezae Cantabrigiensis [i.e., Codex Beza], some Italic [pre-<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina">382</a> AD Latin], Justin Martyr [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr">died 165 AD</a>] <strong>Dialogue with Trypho</strong> </span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">ch.88 p.244; Hilary, Methodius ("<a href="http://www.biblequery.org/lkmss.htm">Early Manuscripts of Luke,</a>" Biblequery.com.) </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">The Codex Bezae dates to the 400s, and it has "this day I have begotten thee." See George Huntston Williams, <strong>Radical Reformation</strong> (3d Edition.) (Truman State University, 1995) at 452 fn. 42 (“Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee,’ a wording that <strong>survives in the Codex Bezae</strong> for Lk. 3:22.”) The portion of Matthew 3:17 in Codex Bezae -- the Baptismal Account -- is entirely lost because pages covering Matthew 1:20 to 6:20 are entirely gone.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">Ehrman says it is also in [1] the <strong>Didaschalia [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didascalia_Apostolorum">circa 230 AD</a>] </strong> [2] Tyconius [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonius">died 390 AD</a>], and [3] Augustine -- all also have "this day I have begotten thee." Ehrman says the only earlier exception is the P4 manuscript of Luke's gospel. This is insufficient, he says, to prevail over the overwhelming weight of sources prior to P4 and the many after P4. (Ehrman, <strong>Orthodox Corruption</strong>, supra, at 62-63.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt;">F. The NT "Epistle to the Hebrews"</span></h3>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The original baptism language of "this day I have begotten thee" is quoted in the NT in the Epistle to the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb+1:5,5:5">Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5</a>. Each quote refers to the Father speaking these words, rather than the Psalmist being directly quoted:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">For unto which of the angels <strong>said</strong> <strong>he</strong> [i.e., implying Father God said to Jesus] at any time, Thou art my Son,<strong> this day have I begotten thee</strong>? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (Heb. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%201:5&version=KJV">1:5</a>, KJV)</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but <strong>he</strong> [i.e., God] that <strong>said unto him [i.e., Christ]</strong> Thou art my Son,<strong> today have I begotten thee</strong>. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb+5%3A5&version=KJV">Heb. 5:5</a>, KJV)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Each says the Father said this to Jesus, not the Psalmist was talking, evidently aware of the original reading in both Gospels.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">(A). These Hebrews passages Are Dismissed As Heretical Adoptionism</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">These passages in Hebrews are sometimes said to convey the "adoptionist" view of Jesus. By such a label, if you know the history of alleged heresies, this means they are being dismissed as heresy. This is done despite adoption is not even implied. Rather, Psalm 2 relates God from Heaven saying "this day I have begotten thee" which is an <strong>express creation of the son by a birth</strong>! It is one of the silliest alleged heresies ever. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This smear label obviously was devised to block attention to the seriousness of the forgery of removing the Psalm2-Baptismal language from Matthew and Luke. See the summary "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism#:~:text=Adoptionism%2C%20also%20called%20dynamic%20monarchianism,his%20resurrection%2C%20or%20his%20ascension.">Adoptionism</a>" Wikipedia. This article says adoptionism is injecting the false idea of a "<strong>low Christology</strong>" that God simpy "adopted" Jesus as Son at His baptism. </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">However, this insinuation is false itself. Instead God is quoted saying at the Baptism that He gave <strong>birth</strong> to Jesus as His Son. There is no adoption at all. However, no one ever mentions this flaw. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Let's dig a little deeper on how preposterous 'adoption' is as a label.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Interestingly, anti-adoptionists acknowledge they are merely inferring adoption is intended by the words "This Day I have begotten thee" by claiming it sounds like something which Rashi talks about in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 19b. Some claim Rashi says or implies that Scripture says adoption is "as though he [i.e., the adopter] had begotten him." <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">See "</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_Judaism#:~:text=Adoption%20does%20not%20exist%20as,in%20Jewish%20Law%20(Halacha).&text=Based%20on%20the%20Talmudic%20teachings,through%20the%20act%20of%20adoption." style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Adoption in Judaism</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">," Wikipedia. </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">However, Rashi in fact does not say that. What Rashi says is that one who teaches Torah to a friend's son is "considered as if he fathered him." See "<a href="https://www.jweekly.com/2002/05/10/torah-students-become-the-children-of-their-teacher/#:~:text=Rashi%20brings%20the%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin,as%20if%20he%20fathered%20him.&text=King%20Chizkiyahu%20calls%20the%20Jewish,he%20personally%20taught%20them%20Torah.">Torah Students Become The Children of their Teacher,</a>" The Jewish News of Northern California (2002). There is no sense of adoption in Rashi's words. There is a begetting in the truest sense, but spiritual, not physical. But it is not adoption.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Moreover would the Psalmist have meant in Psalm 2 someone is adopting a child? Absolutely not!</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Under the Law of Moses, there is <strong>NO SUCH THING AS ADOPTION</strong>. See "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_Judaism#:~:text=Adoption%20does%20not%20exist%20as,in%20Jewish%20Law%20(Halacha).&text=Based%20on%20the%20Talmudic%20teachings,through%20the%20act%20of%20adoption.">Adoption in Judaism</a>," Wikipedia. "Adoption does not exist in formal practice in Jewish law." (<strong>Id</strong>.) </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Yet, regardless, the actual language of Psalm 2 in Matthew and Luke would be an <strong>equally high Christology as any other</strong>. However, it is derided as low in comparison to the extreme but preferred trinitarian concept. This smearing of this verse by trinitarian Christians is for the lowly purpose of causing the uninformed to be unconcerned about a <strong>serious corruption</strong> of Holy Scripture that <strong>undermines a key aspect</strong> of who Jesus is: The <strong>Son of God</strong> and <strong>Messiah</strong> depicted in Psalm 2. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Even so, orthodoxy about an "eternal son" appears to have won out by means of the Vulgate of 405 AD and the KJV even though it means we leave Matthew and Luke in an unjustifiable disrepair. We are told we can just dismiss the significance of the very same words in the Epistle to the Hebrews which it says the Father spoke to Jesus. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Regardless of all the foregoing, for purposes of reconstructing the original Mathew and Luke, it still remains significant that the Epistle to the Hebrews' writer in the NT is talking about these passages in Matthew and Luke. The writer is not talking about what the Psalmist says, but instead about what God said to Jesus.</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span></p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">G. Why is Psalm 2 Important?</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Most importantly, Psalm 2 is crucial to understanding who is Jesus. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">It is one of the only two references to a prophesied Messiah in the Original Covenant writings also known as the Tanak. One is in Daniel 9:24-27. The other is Psalm 2. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This short psalm talks about an "anointed one" (Messiah) who is a begotten Son of God. Is this Jesus? Obviously so.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Psalm 2 talks about a unique Son of God whom will serve as the judge of humankind as its king. The Psalm requires we kiss this "son of God," lest he be angry. This is reference to homage owed toward this king.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This passage and the Daniel passage is why John said that he wrote his gospel so we believe that Jesus is "<strong>Messiah and Son of God</strong>." (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A31&version=NIV">John 20:31</a>.) It alludes back to Psalm 2 and Daniel 9:24-28, but most clearly to Psalm 2. </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This Psalm is also why Peter answers Jesus' question "who do you say I am," with the response: "<strong>Messiah and Son of God</strong>" (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt+16%3A16&version=NIV">Matt 16:16</a>). Both titles only appear together in Psalm 2 about the same person. It is obviously a prophecy about Jesus. Yahweh from Heaven said this to call to mind Psalm 2 to make certain we understood what Jesus represents. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">H. Psalm 2 Confirmed In The Dead Sea Scrolls</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>The Dead Sea Scrolls' Bible</strong> translates scroll fragments found in 1947 that date to around 200 BC. It covers the first eight verses which survived the centuries in the sand. The other verses crumbled away.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Abegg reconstructed those eight verses at page 512 of <strong>The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible</strong> (1999). (This is from Scroll 11Q7 Psalms -- sadly a highly fragmentary text -- see <a href="https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/11Q7-1?locale=en_US">photographs</a>, but more on that in a moment.) It reads very comparable to how it reads today. Here is the pertinent part: </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"> [N]ations [Gentiles] conspire ... in vain and [they] counsel together against [YHWH] and against his<span style="font-weight: bold;"> annointed [<span style="color: #ff0000;">massiyah</span></span>].... [YHWH] will speak to them in his wrath, ...as follows: "But I have installed <span style="font-weight: bold;">my king </span>upon Zion, my holy mountain." I will make known [YHWH's decree] <span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>He said to me</strong></span>:<span style="font-weight: bold;"> [You are] my [son; today I have begotten thee</span> you; Ask of m]e and [I will surely make <span style="font-weight: bold;">the nations your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth your possession]." </span></span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"> <span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><span>(For the full 8 verses, see </span><a href="https://airtable.com/shr1PjNWlyyZQj440">link</a><span> of screen capture.) </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><span>Incidentally, because the Psalmist is declaring a "decree" Yahweh gave him, rather than a promise to the Psalmist himself, Jewish Rabbis understood that this was a promise directed at the Messiah when he would be revealed. </span></span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">See Talmud Sukha 52 in</span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"></span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Problems of Bible Translation</strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"> (1954) at </span><a href="https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Problems%20in%20Bible%20Translations.pdf" style="color: #517291;">page 145</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"> (PDF link).</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">The Dead Sea Scrolls has another scroll covering Psalm 2 -- Scroll 3Q2. It covers verses 6 through 8 fully intact which at this site is translated: </span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="color: black; background: white;">6 “Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of</span><span style="color: #1f497d; background: white;"> Zion</span><span style="color: black; background: white;">.”</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; color: black; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="background: white;">7 I will tell of the decree.</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="color: black; background: white;">Yahweh </span><span style="color: #1f497d; background: white;">said</span><span style="color: black; background: white;"> to me, “<strong>You are </strong></span><strong><span style="color: #1f497d; background: white;">my son</span><span style="color: black; background: white;">.</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; color: black; padding-left: 60px;"><strong><span style="background: white;">Today I have become your father."</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">The bolded words are also the same words that this translator could have rendered "You are my son, this day I have begotten you." See <a href="http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%202.htm">Dead Sea Scrolls Bible Translations - Psalm 2</a>.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Thus, even with just those eight verses, we learn this is Yahweh addressing the Messiah and the Son of God reflected by it saying "This day I have begotten thee." This person is also to be the king of humanity. </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Thus all the material elements are present. All that we </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">are missing due to the badly fragmented nature of </span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">these scraps which is significant -- is the closing --</span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;"><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+2%3A12&version=NIV">Psalm 2:12 NIV:</a> </span></span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; color: black; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="background: white;"><strong>Kiss his son</strong>, or he will be angry</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; color: black; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="background: white;"> and your way will lead to your destruction,</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; color: black; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="background: white;">for his wrath can flare up in a moment.</span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 18pt; color: black; padding-left: 60px;"><span style="background: white;"> Blessed are all <strong>who take refuge in him</strong>.</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;"></span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Incidentally, modern Jewish translations render "Son" -- bar - in Psalm 2:12 as "purifiy" and thereby "kiss the son" becomes in their English version "yearn for purity" or similar renderings.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">However, the truly better translation is "kiss the son." It requires one to know that a non-Hebrew word "bar" -- Aramaic for <strong>son</strong> -- is used in 2:12 to mean "son", just as the Aramaic "bar" is in Proverbs 31:2, and means "son" as even Jewish texts translate it that way as it means "son of my womb." The reason is well explained at this webpage: "<a href="http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/kiss-the-son-or-do-homage-in-purity-in-psalm-212">Kissing the Son or Doing Homage to Purity in Psalm 2:12</a>," KJVToday.com. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">I. Psalm 2 "This Day" Quoted In Acts About Jesus</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">In the book of Acts, a reference is made to the Psalmist saying these same words, and it is applied to Jesus: </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">“God hath <strong>fulfilled</strong> the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up <strong>Jesus</strong> again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son,<strong> this day have I begotten thee</strong>.” (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+13%3A33&version=KJV">Acts 13:33 KJV</a>.) </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">There is obviously nothing low about this Christology at all except in the eyes of corrupting trinitarians who thought God let them down in Psalm 2 talking of a Son who could not be God because he was not eternally begotten in the unbegotten past, but at a specific time: at Jesus' Baptism. They made up the phoney "adoptionism heresy" - late in time. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">I have experienced first hand whenever you tell any churchman today about this corruption, they throw back at you this variant reflects the alleged heresy of "adoptionism." </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">So by dint of training, the churchmen of today continue to close off a truth -- a fundamental truth -- that Psalm 2 is about the Messiah and Son of God, and points to the birth of the Son as a Son, and not an adoption anyway.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt;">J. Christian Commentary Sources 95-325 AD Repititiously Quote 'this day I have begotten thee'</span></h3>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">There is no doubt how the original baptism-of-Jesus once read to include the quote from Psalm 2:7. As quoted at length below, the original version is <strong>quoted numerous times</strong> in the following early Christian commentaries written between pre-70 A.D. and 325 A.D.: </span></p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians [pre-70 AD];</strong> </span></li>
|
|
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>Dialogue of Justin with Tryphon, A Jew</strong>; </span></li>
|
|
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>The Instructor; </strong></span></li>
|
|
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; and</strong></span></li>
|
|
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>Concerning Chastity</strong>; and </span></li>
|
|
<li><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"><strong>Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul</strong>. </span></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This is not in date order.</span></p>
|
|
<div><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></div>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">160 AD, [Not the same as "Pope" Clement who <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I">died 99 AD</a>. See below.]</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">First, the original baptism-of-Jesus account is quoted in Book One, Chapter VI of The Instructor, a work of 160 A.D. by Clement of Alexandria: “For at the moment of the Lord’s <strong>baptism</strong> there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, ‘Thou art My beloved Son,<strong> to-day have I begotten Thee.</strong>’” “Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume II/CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA/The Instructor/Book I/Chapter VI,” at <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_II/CLEMENT_OF_ALEXANDRIA/The_Instructor/Book_I/Chapter_VI.">wikisource</a> </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Alternatively see also, Clement of A., <em>Christ, the Educator, Fathers of the Church</em> (CUA 2010) Vol. 23 at <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=tI_GTDlgcZsC&lpg=PA25&ots=DifFH86ohy&dq=washington%20codex%20this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=washington%20codex%20this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee&f=false">page 25</a> ("When the Lord was <strong>baptized</strong>, a voice loudly sounded from heaven, as a witness to him who was beloved, 'Thou art my beloved son, this Day I have begotten thee.")<br /></span></p>
|
|
<div><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></div>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">300 AD, Methodius</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Methodius (A.D. 260-312), in Part 9, chapter IX in his work, <strong>The Banquet of the Ten Virgins</strong>; or, Concerning Chastity, is similarly quoting the original baptism-of-Jesus account when we read: “Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was<strong><em> spoken by the Father from above to Christ</em></strong> when He came to be <strong>baptized</strong> in the water of the Jordan, ‘Thou art my son: <strong><em>this day have I begotten thee</em></strong>.’” “Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Methodius/Banquet of the Ten Virgins/Thekla/Part 9,” <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VI/Methodius/Banquet_of_the_Ten_Virgins/Thekla/Part_9">wikisource</a> (Schaff)</span></p>
|
|
<div><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></div>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">300 AD, Lactantius</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Again, in the words of Lactantius (A.D. 260-330), in his <strong>The Divine Institutes</strong>, book IV, chapter XV, he quotes the original uncorrupted version of the baptism-of-Jesus account: “Then a voice from heaven was heard: ‘Thou art my Son,<strong><em> </em>today have I begotten Thee</strong>.’ Which voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed after the<strong><em> </em>appearance of a white dove</strong>.” <strong>Ante-Nicene Fathers/</strong>Volume VII/Lactantius/The Divine Institutes/Book IV/Chap. XV,” <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VII/Lactantius/The_Divine_Institutes/Book_IV/Chap._XV">wikisource</a> (from Schaff).</span></p>
|
|
<div><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></div>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">234 AD, Acts of...Peter and Paul</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">In the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (234 A.D.), it says: “Him therefore to whom the Father said, Thou art my Son, <strong><em>this day have I begotten</em></strong> Thee, the chief priests through envy crucified.” .“Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VIII/Apocrypha of the New Testament/Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul/Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul,” <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VIII/Apocrypha_of_the_New_Testament/Acts_of_the_Holy_Apostles_Peter_and_Paul/Acts_of_the_Holy_Apostles_Peter_and_Paul">wikisource</a></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">230 AD (est.), Origen</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">In Origen’s <strong>Commentary on the Gospel of John</strong>, section 32, Origen (died 254) writes: “None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Savior’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, ‘<strong>Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee</strong>,’ this is <strong>spoken to Him by God</strong>.” <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john1.html">(Early Christian Writings</a>)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">Clement - Epistle Composed pre-70 AD</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, XXXVI, written by Clement—a man who was a direct disciple of the Apostle Peter—it says: “But concerning His Son the Lord [Yahweh] spoke thus: <strong>‘Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee</strong>.’” (<strong>Ante-Nicene Fathers</strong> Vol. 1 at <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=bPdMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA15&ots=jUg8QXHgWV&dq=first%20epistle%20of%20clement%20But%20concerning%20His%20Son%20the%20Lord%20spoke%20thus%3A%20%E2%80%98Thou%20art%20my%20Son%2C%20to-day%20have%20I%20begotten%20Thee.&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q=first%20epistle%20of%20clement%20But%20concerning%20His%20Son%20the%20Lord%20spoke%20thus:%20%E2%80%98Thou%20art%20my%20Son,%20to-day%20have%20I%20begotten%20Thee.&f=false">15</a>.) </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Because this epistle mentions the sacrifices were still ongoing at Jerusalem, this epistle dates to pre-70 AD. For in 70 AD, the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman armies, ending the sacrifices from then until today. <span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">In </span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=wEFMAAAAYAAJ&dq=jesus%20%22afraid%20of%20death%22%20jerome&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q=jesus%20%22afraid%20of%20death%22%20jerome&f=false" style="color: #517291; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">17:14-22</a><span style="color: #494a44; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">, Clement affirms that we must continue our offerings and sacrifice, and mentions this is not done everywhere except at Jerusalem. Hence, the date of this letter's composition must be pre-70 AD. </span></span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">See "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement">First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,</a>" Wikipedia ("internal evidence composed prior to 70 AD.")</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; color: #0000ff;">165 AD, Justin</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Lastly, in a writing by Justin (died 165 A.D.) known as the <strong>Dialogue of Justin with Tryphon</strong>, A Jew, in chapter LXXXVIII, Justin writes about Jesus, clearly referencing the Gospels’ baptism accounts:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life; but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the<strong> form of a dove</strong>, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘Thou art My Son:<strong> this day have I begotten Thee</strong>.’ (Justin, <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html">Trypho</a>)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Justin then goes on to explain in <strong>Trypho the Jew</strong>—once more obviously quoting the original form of Matthew 3:17 and Luke 3:22:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">For this devil, when [Jesus] <strong>went up from the river Jordan,</strong> at the time when the voice spake to Him, “Thou art my Son: <strong>this day have I begotten Thee</strong>,” is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, “Worship me;” and Christ answered him, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” Id., ch. CII.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Other Christian writers predating 400AD who found the same passage in Matthew are</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">[1] <strong>Juvencus</strong>, Evangeliorum Libri Quattor, I 360-64 [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvencus">circa 330 AD</a>]; and </span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">[2] Hilary, <strong>De Trinitate</strong>, VIII, 25, Tyconius, Reg. 1 [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers">written in 360 AD</a>] </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt;">K. Christians Quote Matthew and Luke Against Church Orthodox Views But Quote Accepted As Fact From Luke</span></h3>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Similarly, as discussed above in some depth already, the phrase ‘this day I have begotten thee’ was quoted by the Bishop of the Christian sect of Manicheans -- one Faustus of Mileve -- in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_of_Mileve">383 AD</a> from both Matthew and Luke’s Gospel as having been uttered at Jesus’ baptism. Faustus was made later to appear unorthodox as this verse would be removed from Matthew's Gospel post Nicea. <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 24px;">Yet, Faustus held on to the view that Jesus was not born Son of God but became Son of God at his baptism.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">(Manicheans are regarded as a Christian heretical sect which added to Jesus' teachings that Christians supposedly should also follow the teachings of an alleged later "Apostle of Light" named Mani. See <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Manichaeism">Manichaenism,</a> <strong>Encyclopedia Brittanica</strong>.) </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This original truth also ran afoul of the late doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus was the 'eternal' Son of God, which doctrine emerged at Nicea in 325 AD under Emperor Constantine's influence. (His goal was to alter Jesus to match Constantine's favored deity - Sol Invictus, a Son of his father God, Horus. See our article "<a href="/recommendedreading/239-council-of-nicea-of-325-ad.html">Council of Nicea</a>.")</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Augustine in his point-by-point rebuttal in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_of_Mileve">383 A.D</a>. does not dispute this is how Matthew read. Augustine juggles in a paragraph quoting Matthew saying the Father says "my Son in whom I am well pleased," but never denying the portion quoted by Festus -- "This day I have begotten thee" is present. <br /></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">In 383 AD approximately, Augustine disputes only how Luke may have read in some earlier codex, but not attesting he knew this to be the case. See section D above. (Remember, however, the Hebrew Matthew originally had the 'This day I have begotten thee" at Jesus' baptism. See above.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">We find this Faustus-Augustine exchange in Schaff’s Augustin: <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.xxv.html?highlight=this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee#highlight">The Writings Against the Manicheans and Against the Donatists</a>, in Book XXIII (1890) at 313. Schaff recounts Faustus’ points about the Matthew passage when read in light of Luke:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Faustus recurs to the genealogical difficulty and insists that even according to Matthew Jesus was <strong>not Son of God until His baptism</strong>. Augustin sets forth the Catholic view of the relation of the divine and the human in the person of Christ. So this quote begins with Faustus citing how Matthew and Luke read in 400 AD [sic: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustus_of_Mileve">383 AD</a>] -- at least in the Greek versions Faustus had access to:</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">[Faustus wrote]</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">2. I will, for the present, suppose that this person was right in saying that the son of David was born of Mary. It still remains true, that in this whole passage of the generation<strong> no mention is made of the Son of God till we come to the baptism</strong>; so that it is an injurious misrepresentation on your part to speak of this writer as making the Son of God the inmate of a womb. The writer, indeed, seems to cry out against such an idea, and in the very title of his book to clear himself of such blasphemy, asserting that the person whose birth he describes is the son of David, not the Son of God. And if you attend to the writer’s meaning [<em>i.e.</em>, Matthew's meaning] and purpose, you will see that what he wishes us to believe of Jesus the Son of God is not so much that He was born of Mary, as that <strong>He became the Son of God by baptism at the river Jordan</strong>. He [<em>i.e.</em>, Matthew] tells us that the person of whom he spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and <strong>became the Son of God on this particular occasion</strong>, when about thirty years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to Him, “Thou art my Son; <strong>this day have I begotten Thee</strong>.”</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Schaff provides Augustine’s complete reply. <em>Id</em>., at 318 et seq. Augustine insinuates but does not state Matthew on,y contains "son in whom I am well pleased" and nothing more. (The Hebrew Matthew quoted by Epiphanius has both, so Augustine's reference is an attempt to mislead.) Augustine thus did not directly dispute how Matthew read, as apparently that had not yet been altered. Augustine quotes Matthew back at Faustus: “when He was baptized by John, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” Augustine does not say the words at issue are missing but seems to suggest we should assume so. Instead, </span><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Augustine focuses upon these words about a "beloved son" and says they do not “imply that He was not the Son of God before.” <em>Id</em>., at 315. True enough. But that is not a real answer, is it? Are these different words Festus relies upon -- "This Day I have begotten thee" - missing? That is the question. Augustine is silent.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Augustine then completely ignores the quote from Luke which equally made Faustus’ case despite what we can now see was possibly a deliberate change in Matthew that Augustine was already contemplating as necessary to defeat the late 'eternal son' doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">(For further discussion of this portion of Faustus, see Barbara Aland, Joël Delobel, <strong>New Testament textual criticism, exegesis, and early church history</strong> (Peeters, 1994) at <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4xXSlE_ZvcC&lpg=PA121&ots=K380wpl4Fq&dq=juvencus%20this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false">121</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;" data-mce-mark="1">Based on Epiphanius' account of the Hebrew Matthew, what explains Augustine partially quoting Matthew, but not contesting either it or Luke actually lacks the language "this day," etc.?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h3><span style="color: #333399; font-size: 18pt;" data-mce-mark="1">IV. When And Why Did This Change Happen?</span></h3>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">It takes no genius to figure out why this text was deleted about "this day I have begotten thee" in Latin. </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The message at the Baptism "this day I have begotten thee" conflicted with a doctrine first adopted in 325 AD at Nicea that Jesus was in effect the '<strong>eternal son</strong> of God.' Jesus was said to be "begotten <strong>not made</strong>" which supposedly meant he was eternal -- 'not made' -- and was begotten in an eternal state of begottenness -- a concept incomprehensible to the human mind but yet affirmed as fact.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">While no verse of truly inspired writ expressly supports that idea of an eternal son, it became fixed dogma.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Next, let's touch on the time "this day I begotten thee" is erased. We know it exists in the Codex Beza which dates to the 400s. This is also known as Codex D or the Western-type text. It was the form of text of Rome's period of text copying until it transitions to Byzantium text type. Constantine moved the empire's capital from Rome to Constantinople in <a href="https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/byzantium-the-new-rome/#:~:text=The%20founder%20of%20the%20Byzantine,persecuted%20in%20the%20Roman%20Empire.">330 AD</a>. The text type of Bibles thereafter moved to a different text type known as the Byzantine text type. That took some time. Eventually, a first New Testament will appear and after that <a href="http://www.ukapologetics.net/realbible.htm">literally thousands</a> of versions -- all belonging to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type">Byzantine text type</a> -- will dominate. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">No one actually ever says that nowhere in the thousands of the examples of the Byzantine text type that there is omission of "This day I have begotten thee" spoken at Jesus' baptism. Instead, all that is ever said is they found this baptismal language in the Western type text -- Codex Beza, and then earlier in church writings from early the 300s to much earlier. Silence. Crickets when it comes to what is in the Byzantine text types.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">This silence is apparently intended so that we would infer or assume that we will not find a baptismal account with "This day I have begotten thee" anywhere in the Byzantine text type manuscripts for the New Testament. Because there are thousands of copies to consider, has no one been brave enough to ever tells us what is there? Nor does anyone ever said it does not exist in any single version of the New Testament in that tradition, let alone the earliest. It is an eery silence.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Regardless, what is the oldest version of the Gospels of the New Testament in that Byzantine text tradition? The Codex Alexandrinus. It comes from the 400s -- and is known to be from the "Fifth Century" -- that is, the 400s. See "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type#:~:text=There%20are%20six%20manuscripts%20earlier,the%20New%20Testament%20being%20Alexandrian.">Byzantine Text Type,</a>" Wikipedia. It has a Byzantine-text type for the Gospels only. Otherwise, the remainder of its NT is in the Alexandrian text type. Thus, Codex Alexandrinus covers both Matthew and Luke in the Byzantine text type. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">What is peculiar is that this oldest preserved text type in Greek after the Codex Beza has never been been translated into English except Mark. The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions Codex Alexandrinus was crucial in textual criticism of the Bible, but never mentions it was ever translated into any language at all. See <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04080c.htm">link</a>. I searched high and low. Codex Alexandrinus is well-preserved. But when you search on Matthew 3:17 or Luke 3:22 in Bible Hub, while you are offered the Greek words for numerous text manuscripts or collections, no parallel is offered for Codex Alexandrinus or even Codex Beza. Is that an oversight? Or something more nefarious?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Well, study shows that Matthew in the Alexandrinus is missing 25 pages ("leaves") up through Matthew 25:6. See <strong>Fascimile of Codex Alexandrinus</strong> (1879) at <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Facsimile_of_the_Codex_Alexandrinus/u_eWZxlSPLIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=facsimile%20codex%20alexandrinus&pg=PP6&printsec=frontcover">page 4</a>. So that is simply a preservation issue. But what about Luke 3:22? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">I have looked over the fascimile version. Without chapter and verse numbering, and the difficulty of deciphering Greek in a Byzantine type font, only an expert can find Luke 3:22 and translate it for us. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">It is puzzling that this most important early text of Christianity has not been translated into English except Mark apparently. By contrast, there are three different English translations of the Septuagint Greek Bible dating to 247 BC. They are readily discoverable online. But a crucial early Greek New Testament -- the Codex Alexandrinus from the 400s -- is not translated at all I to English except Mark, it appears. Most strange.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Regardless, the oldest competing example in that Byzantine-text manuscript tradition post-dates 383 AD when Faustus bested Augustine on the validity of "This day I have begotten thee" using both Matthew and Luke. It otherwise clearly exists in the competing line that survived right to the King James -- the Codex Beza-- only to be rejected by the KJV, and as a result it did not survive in English translations.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">So what do we know for a fact?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">We know that prior to 383 AD, 'this day I have begotten thee' in the baptism account was quoted repeatedly in the early church writings going all the way back to 37 AD in the Hebrew Matthew and before 70 AD because Bishop Clement also mentions the sacrifices were still ongoing at Jerusalem. We know it persisted up through 383 AD, and is how Bishop Faustus defeated Augustine in their back-and-forth correspondence on the "eternal son doctrine" debate.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The motivation for destruction or for not translating the Baptismal "This Day" Language into English by the KJV or into Latin by Jerome is demonstrable simply by examining Charles Hodge's <strong>SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY</strong> (1871) Vol. 1.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Hodge addresses what would be the problem if this verse were in NT Scripture. He says if this language from Psalm 2:7 could be applied to Jesus, it is a "<strong>more plausible</strong>" objection to the 'eternal son' doctrine. He says:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">More plausible objections are founded on certain passages of the Scriptures. In Psalm 2:7, it is said, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” From this it is argued that Christ or the Messiah was constituted or <strong>made the Son of God in time, and therefore was not the Son of God from <span style="color: #ff0000;">eternity</span><em>.</em></strong> (Vol. 1<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.iv.vi.vi.html"> section 6</a> at ccel.org.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Initially, notice that Hodges only has to address that it exists in a Psalm. He does not have to cope with the fact that the authentic version of Matthew's or Luke's Gospel ascribed this to the voice of Yahweh from heaven at Jesus' baptism. Yet, clearly he signifies if it were found in a true verse of the NT it would be a "plausible objection" to raise against its validity the "eternal son" doctrine.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">But the "eternal son" doctrine makes no sense. To say Jesus was the "Eternal Son" begotten of God, as was developed at Nicea and thereafter, was always a <strong>contradiction</strong> in terms. As Adam Clarke, a Methodist, explained in his commentary:</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">"…it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the <strong>eternal Sonship of Christ</strong> is<strong> absolutely irreconcilable to reason</strong>, and contradictory to itself. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: <strong>SON supposes time, generation, and father</strong>; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply <strong>essentially different and opposite ideas</strong>" (<a href="http://bible.cc/acts/13-33.htm">Adam Clarke Commentary</a>).</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"> </p>
|
|
<p style="background-image: url('');"><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">But this suppression of this passage in English and Latin translation is not an isolated incident. It fits a pattern where Christology (trinitarianism) -- the Nicene Creed -- must conquer no matter what the cost to the Bible delivered to the people.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Professor Bart D. Ehrman (Christian background; professor on Christianity) catalogs a whole series of similar alterations (some small, but some big) to the New Testament in his book <strong>The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture</strong> (Oxford University Press, 1993). There he warns us that:</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">...theological disputes, <strong>specifically disputes over Christology</strong>, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently ‘orthodox’ and less susceptible to ‘abuse’ by the opponents of orthodoxy. (<em>Id</em>., at<a href="https://airtable.com/shrcfaaL8uAyp9LFB"> 3-4</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> <span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The fact this verse is present from the very beginning in Hebrew and Greek is too well-attested from too many sources, including the Epistle to the Hebrews in our very own NT of today, to deny what it has said from the very beginning. There is no proof it is actually missing from any early Greek text covering either Matt 3:17 or Luke 3:22.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">What can we say of those church leaders in the early late 300s and early 400s who did not think it wrong to preserve a Latin translation that reflected a different version than the original? And this was repeated by the KJV?</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt; background-color: transparent;">They are forgerers via translation. They sadly were willing to use guile. They deserve our censure. As the orthodox church leader Tertullian said about Marcion in 200 AD and his followers who changed the earlier gospel accounts via Marcion's translation:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">[W]e take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining... that<strong> a late date is the mark of forgers</strong>, and...<strong>truth must needs precede the forgery</strong>, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on. (Tertullian, <strong>Against Marcion</strong>, Bk. 4, ch. <a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/ter_marc4.htm">5</a>.)</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="background-color: transparent;"></span> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">V. <strong>Rabbinic Teaching Shortly After Christ Says God Will Address Messiah as God Did in Psalm 2</strong></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The Talmud book Sukkha preserves from <a href="https://truthnet.org/TheMessiah/12_Messiah_Objections_Psalms_2_22/">52 AD</a> -- thus likely reflecting pre-Christ understanding too -- the thought of Jewish scribes that something like in the Hebrew Matthew from 37 AD would be how God Yahweh would address Messiah:</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">"Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, Blessed be He, <em><strong>will say to</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong>the Messiah,</strong></em> the Son of David (may he reveal himself speedily in our</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">day), 'Ask of me anything, and I will give it thee,' as it is said, 'I will</span><br /><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">tell of the decree,' erc., '<em><strong>this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I</strong></em></span><br /><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><em><strong>will give the nations for thy inheritance</strong></em>.''' (Talmud, Sukkah 52)</span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">(quoted in <strong>Problems of Bible Translation</strong> (1954) at <a href="https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Problems%20in%20Bible%20Translations.pdf">page 145</a> (PDF link). </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Thus, if Jewish teachers could say in Christ's era that this will be spoken to the Messiah when he comes, why should we not actually expect God to have said this to Jesus as truly recorded in Matthew and Luke - as all the most early witnesses and documents prove? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">The effort to suppress this via translation had nothing ever that one could truly say it was truly heretical. </span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><br /><em></em></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">VI. Ehrman On How Luke's Gospel Was Worked Over to Remove Ebionite Version that Jesus' Human Father Was Joseph At The Same Time "This Day" is Removed</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Bart Ehrman's book <strong>Lost Christianities</strong> (N.Y. 2003) explained <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">Luke was edited in three places.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">First, Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 both contain verses that state that Joseph was Jesus' father. At least, that is what is said in the oldest manuscripts. Verses such as Luke 2:33 <em><strong>s</strong></em><strong>upported Ebionite Christians' belief derogatorily referred to incorrectly as adoptionism, i.e., God spoke "this day I have begotten thee" over Jesus</strong><em><strong>.</strong></em></span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;"><em><strong> </strong></em></span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">Strangely, in some later manuscripts Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 both had the word 'father' edited out although over half of our bibles today have thankfully reverted to the original version. <br /></span></span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">Othwrwise, Luke 3:22 is where God clearly says that he is giving birth to Jesus as Son of God. It was not translated late in church history in the 405 AD Vulgate but is present in the Greek Codex Bexae dating to the 400s.</span></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;"><br /></span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 24px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">VII. Ehrman How God Is Left Saying Only Something Lacking Significant Truth</span></strong></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">Bart Ehrman at <a href="https://airtable.com/shrn8hzg764Xy5898">page 66</a> of <strong>Orthodox Corruption</strong> also shows how uninformative is "This is my beloved son" when compared to "This day I have begotten thee" because it alludes to Psalm 2: </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">[O]ne is hardpressed to see how the more commonly attested text of Luke 3:22 could be original. For this reading, ("You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased') constitutes a mere <strong>identification</strong> formula in which Jesus is recognized as the Son of God. It is only in the variant reading, the one that is<strong> attested by virtually all the earliest witnesses</strong>, that God is actually said to confer a new status on Jesus ("<strong>Today I have begotten thee</strong>") Only in theologiclly difficult [sic: meaningful] reading is God said to 'elect' Jesus in a manner presupposed in 9:5, that is, through a quotation of the royal adoption [sic: "this day I have begotten thee"] drawn from the second Psalm.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong style="font-size: 24px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">VIII. Ehrman's Astonishment</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p><strong style="font-size: 24px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;"></span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">Ehrman returns to this issue in <strong>Lost Christianities</strong> (Oxford University Press, 2005) at page<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lost_Christianities/URdACxKubDIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=one+proto-orthodox+alteration+that+proved+remarkably+successful&pg=PA223&printsec=frontcover"> 223</a>, and provides a poignant observation</span>:</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">This is one proto-orthodox alteration that <strong>proved remarkably successful</strong>. Even though the potentially dangerous ("heretical") form of the text is found <strong>in virtually all our oldest witnesses</strong> [...] it is the altered form of the text that is found in the <strong>majority of surviving</strong> manuscripts and <strong>reproduced in most of our English translations</strong>. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><strong style="font-size: 24px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Conclusion: </span></strong></p>
|
|
<p><strong style="font-size: 24px;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Restoring this Verse Is Central to Christianity</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Jesus said in <a href="https://biblehub.com/john/5-31.htm">John 5:31</a> that "if I testify on my own behalf, my witness would <strong>not be valid</strong>." So if Jesus alone says he is Yahweh's Messiah and Son of Yahweh, we must reject that as invalid. Right? Who can say who is Yahweh's Messiah and Son? Only God. There can be only one who can testify validly. </span></p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Jesus continues in <a href="https://biblehub.com/john/5-32.htm">John 5:32</a>, and says: "There is another who testifies about me, and I know His testimony is true." Jesus means the Father. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">So where in the New Covenant Scriptures does the Father testify directly that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God before multiple human witnesses IF ONE ELIMINATES THE BAPTISMAL QUOTE OF PSALM 2 BY THE FATHER FROM HEAVEN that was made in front of many corroborating witnesses? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Without this passage, Jesus must be deemed invalidated as Messiah and Son of God, no matter how much we hope otherwise.</span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">So what was lost by the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Trinitarians removing this passage in the Vulgate and in English translations? </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">All of Christianity is unsustainable without this verse. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">Why was this verse rejected in the Latin Vulgate and in the KJV? </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">For a holy purpose? Or to protect a message belonging to Satan? </span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 27.6px;">It was removed clearly to protect the "eternal son" doctrine in the Nicene Creed -- a doctrine nowhere found in Holy Scripture. Moreover, this core statement of Yahweh was removed to make room for a human doctrine which is completely nonsensical.</span></span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Thus, an unessential and crazy claim took priority over words from Yahweh that are absolutely necessary to validate Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Hence, this study above shows not only the importance of this missing passage, but also the purpose of Satan behind the ridiculous "eternal son" doctrine that so many bow to uncritically. </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><strong>End.</strong></span></h2>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<h2><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Email On This Topic</span></h2>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Amy wrote me on November 3, 2010 as follows:</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">The original gospel of Matthew clearly had Jesus being told by YHWH "this day I have begotten thee" and the holy spirit in the form of a dove descended, and entered Jesus. At that point, Jesus became the Son of God indwelled in a unique SHekinah sense by God Himself. Jesus was a man, and continued to be a man despite that experience. Every word or act he saw heard from the Father, he repeated / acted out, as Jesus says in John's Gospel. God knew our feebleness and used a man whom we can see in person, hear in person, who would uniquely be filled by God whom we would listen to....Daniel in Daniel 7 speaks of the Son of Man (a human) coming to earth in time of judgment on clouds of glory, holding God's power in his hands.....but his title and the passage makes it clear this is a MAN -- a man on "clouds of glory" (a synonymn for God's presence).</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"> </p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">NOTES </span></strong></p>
|
|
<p><strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Augustine Deflection of Psalm 2 in Matthew & Luke</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times; font-size: 18pt;">Augustine in <strong>Enchiridion<em> </em></strong>49 appears to concede the presence of "this day I have begotten thee." Augustine there</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding: 0px 0px 10px 30px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; background-image: url(''); background-color: #ffffff; color: #494a44; font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Geneva, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">"explains that <strong>J</strong><strong>esus did not really become God's 'Son' on that day</strong>; the 'today' is instead<strong> an eternal day</strong>." (Barbara Aland, Joël Delobel, <strong>New Testament textual criticism, exegesis, and early church history</strong> (Peeters, 1994) at <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4xXSlE_ZvcC&lpg=PA121&ots=K380wpl4Fq&dq=juvencus%20this%20day%20i%20have%20begotten%20thee&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false" style="color: #517291;">121</a> n. 14 (quoting Jerome.) </span></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="background-image: url('');"><strong><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Honor to Servetus</span></strong></p>
|
|
<p> </p>
|
|
<p style="background-image: url('');"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Let's not forget the first martyr to the cause. Servetus was burned alive at the stake in 1553 at Calvin's charge because Servetus stood boldly against this absurdity -- the eternal son doctrine. As explained in <strong>Did Calvin Murder Servetus</strong> (2012) at 60-61:</span></p>
|
|
<p style="padding-left: 60px; background-image: url('');"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">Almost each and every charge of Calvin's accusation of 1553 ... arises from these points [by Servetus] about Jesus' nature as <strong>not the eternal son</strong>....When Servetus was being burned at the stake, Farel [a cohort of Calvin] exclaimed that because Servetus' last prayer spoke of Jesus as the "<strong>Son of the eternal God</strong>," rather than the "<strong>eternal Son of God</strong>," Servetus deserved to die as a heretic. Had Servetus prayed instead to the "<strong>eternal Son of God</strong>," Farel said Servetus would have been granted life.</span></p>
|
|
<p style="background-image: url('');"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">There must be a special place in heaven for Servetus.</span></p>
|
|
<p style="background-image: url('');"><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'times new roman', times;">But God help those who murdered him for refusing to pray to a lie to uphold the most harmful doctrine to Christianity -- the eternal son doctrine -- because it <span>led to the suppression of the crucial Baptismal language essential to proving a valid witness for Jesus</span>! </span></p>
|
|
<p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 14pt;"> </p>
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
|
|
</table>
|
|
<span class="article_separator"> </span>
|
|
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</table>
|
|
<div class="bottom_top"></div>
|
|
<div id="bottom">
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div id="footer"><strong>Content View Hits</strong> : 19460746<br />
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
|
var pv = new Array(1,0,0,0,1);
|
|
var trdlname = "/downloads";
|
|
//<![CDATA[
|
|
var regex = /\.(?:doc|eps|jpg|png|svg|xls|ppt|pdf|xls|zip|txt|vsd|vxd|js|css|rar|exe|wma|mov|avi|wmv|mp3)($|\&|\?)/;
|
|
//]]>
|
|
var trlkname = "/external/";
|
|
var trmlname = "/mailto/";
|
|
</script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://jesuswordsonly.com/modules/mod_analytics/gatr.js"></script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
|
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
|
|
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
|
|
</script>
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">
|
|
try {
|
|
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-3747914");
|
|
pageTracker._initData();
|
|
pageTracker._trackPageview();
|
|
} catch(err) {}
|
|
</script>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="copyright"></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html> |