Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Paul River

The Heavenly Tabernacle

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering what people think of this guys line of thinking. He is suggesting that the book of Revelation is really a vision of worship within the Heavenly Tabernacle pictured in Hebrews 8 & 9. He is also suggesting that the trumpets, ark, and bowls poured out, symbolize the fulfillment of the Leviticus 23 feasts. Interesting, well presented and produced video, but the ideas are new: https://youtu.be/HmIbxL2vzUM

Share this post


Link to post

Hi William - the article you have posted is defiantly referencing the same concept of the Heavenly Tabernacle, noting it is one of the key themes of the book of Hebrews. Bruce is suggesting that this tabernacle is exactly what we see in operation in the book of Revelation - with every element of the Temple / Tabernacle pictured in the book.

 

And absolutely not Amillennialism

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

I took a look at it and did not think much of it. At 1:41 the video quotes Rev. 1:10.

 

"I was in the spirit on shabbat..."

 

Here is the Greek text.

 

ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ

 

See if you can spot the error\problem this video makes in less than two minutes.

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
I took a look at and did not think much of it. At 1:41 the video quotes Rev. 1:10.

 

"I was in the spirit on shabbat..."

 

Here is the Greek text.

 

ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ

 

See if you can stop the error\problem this video makes in less than two minutes.

 

Hi Origen - I didn't have a problem viewing the video, and didn't see anything at 2 minutes when I just took another look

 

It's also interesting that Bruce uses aleph-tav in this passage rather than alpha-omega. I looked it up and there is an aleph tav Bible - I believe from the Messianic community. When I saw this, the Shabbat reference made sense, as Messianic Christians believe Revelation was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Hi Origen - I didn't have a problem viewing the video, and didn't see anything at 2 minutes when I just took another look.
I did not say I had a problem viewing the video. I said:

 

"See if you can spot the error\problem this video makes in less than two minutes." The answer is:

 

The Greek text does not have shabbat. Shabbat in Greek is σάββατον. If you check the Greek text that word does not appear.

 

ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ

 

It's also interesting that Bruce uses aleph-tav in this passage rather than alpha-omega.
The problem is he is not really following the Greek text. The N.T. was written in Greek not Hebrew.

 

I looked it up and there is an aleph tav Bible
Sure there is in the Old Testament, never in the New Testament. They are the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

 

I believe from the Messianic community.
They are not following the Greek New Testament, the earliest text we have.

 

When I saw this, the Shabbat reference made sense
One ought to follow the Greek text we have rather then following a text that does not exist.

 

as Messianic Christians believe Revelation was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
There are zero Hebrew\Aramaic manuscripts of the N.T. NONE!

 

By the way this Bruce Paul, what are his credentials? Does he have any?

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
They are not following the Greek New Testament, the earliest text we have.

 

One ought to follow the Greek text we have rather then following a text that does not exist.

 

There are zero Hebrew\Aramaic manuscripts of the N.T. NONE!

 

Actually Origen, this is not correct. Have you not heard of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament? The oldest full New Testament of the Peshitta dates back as far as the oldest full Greek New Testament - about 400 CE

 

There are also Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospel of Mathew, like the Shem Tov Gospel of Mathew

 

I've spent some time in the Messianic community, and have been exposed to both the Aramaic and Hebrew primacy arguments for the origin of the New Testament - their positions are both quite compelling.

 

 

 

The Greek text does not have shabbat. Shabbat in Greek is σάββατον. If you check the Greek text that word does not appear.

 

ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ

 

The problem is he is not really following the Greek text. The N.T. was written in Greek not Hebrew.

 

The Greek might not have the word Shabbat, but I just looked up the Aramaic on my Accordance Bible software, and the word it uses is the Aramaic term for Shabbat

 

I guess I'm thinking, this deflection you've brought up (Shabbat) is not enough to sidestep the substance of Bruce's main arguments - which I find very interesting

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Actually Origen, this is not correct. Have you not heard of the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament? The oldest full New Testament of the Peshitta dates back as far as the oldest full Greek New Testament - about 400 CE
Wrong on every point. First, we have Greek manuscripts which date back to the 2nd century A.D. Second, the N.T. Peshitta is a translation of the Greek text. Third, the earliest version of the Peshitta lacked II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. Thus the full canon was not part of the Peshitta and also note one of those books was Revelation. Sixth, the oldest codex of the Peshitta is Codex Phillipps 1388 and is dated to 5th\6th century and contains only the Gospels. Syriac Sinaiticus is 4th century palimpsest containing the Gospels. Seventh, when Revelation was at last translated into Syriac the word shabbat was not used.

 

Paul River you claimed "The oldest full New Testament of the Peshitta dates back as far as the oldest full Greek New Testament." Please name this manuscript\codex which has the full N.T. (i.e. all 27 books)?

 

There are also Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospel of Mathew, like the Shem Tov Gospel of Mathew
There are no early manuscripts the Shem Tov Gospel of Matthew. None! Not one of them date before the 15th century. Moreover there is no evidence that the Apostle Matthew was the author of that document and a great deal of evidence he was not.

 

I've spent some time in the Messianic community, and have been exposed to both the Aramaic and Hebrew primacy arguments for the origin of the New Testament - their positions are both quite compelling.
The sampling you have offered thus far does not supported your claim.

 

The Greek might not have the word Shabbat, but I just looked up the Aramaic on my Accordance Bible software, and the word it uses is the Aramaic term for Shabbat.
The problem is there is no manuscript evidence that the word Shabbat ever appeared in Rev. 1:10. Do you have any manuscript evidence?

 

I guess I'm thinking, this deflection you've brought up (Shabbat) is not enough to sidestep the substance of Bruce's main arguments - which I find very interesting.
Maybe not to you but to someone who knows the languages, the manuscript evidence, and the scholarly sources, it sends up a waring flag about his skills and qualifications.

 

Again I ask, what are Bruce Paul's credentials?

Edited by Origen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Origin - was it not you who said, "There are zero Hebrew\Aramaic manuscripts of the N.T. NONE!?" Both the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament and the Shem Tov Gospel of Matthew are new to you, aren't they - you have just learned about them by doing a quick Wikipidia search, or something similar. So you have no credibility to affirm the negative . . . you haven't even began to study this out.

 

I'm not sure what Bruce Paul's credentials are, but he has inspired me, and I was hoping for some useful feedback about the substance of his thesis.

 

I'm sorry you're stuck on this point, Origin, but I'm not really interested in debating primacy with you in this post. I'm interested in a meaningful dialogue about this message about the Heavenly Tabernacle

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Paul River said:
Origin - was it not you who said, "There are zero Hebrew\Aramaic manuscripts of the N.T. NONE!?"

Ah, now I see how this will go. Rather than defend your position with evidence you are going to try and make it about me. Lets see how that goes.

 

Paul River said:
Both the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament and the Shem Tov Gospel of Matthew are new to you, aren't they

lol Sorry to burst your little bubble but no, far from it.

 

Paul River said:
you have just learned about them by doing a quick Wikipidia search, or something similar.

lol You are hilarious. I use primary sources. Below are some photos of the books I own on this topic, both key primary sources, Howard and the Peshitta.

1301146935_Photo20Oct20242062027201920AM_zpsx66miu0m.thumb.jpg.c4ee4cba1b7e969293ed3cc68aae8ad4.jpgimage_1727.thumb.jpg.20ecf2427f2ffd54334d25cb32ea5d1e.jpgimage_1728.thumb.jpg.8a50e4e21ca79934e4a1aadcd632e485.jpg

Would you like more photos?

 

Paul River said:
So you have no credibility to affirm the negative

First, the sources I have posted prove you wrong again. Second, your comments do nothing to answer the objections I have raise or address the evidence I have given. They are nothing more than a means to avoid my points.

 

Paul River said:
you haven't even began to study this out.

You are funny. I have named two documents Codex Phillipps 1388 and Syriac Sinaiticus. Both prove your claim wrong and both of which you have completely failed to address. Come on name that manuscript\codex which has the full N.T. (i.e. all 27 books)? What is it?

 

Paul River said:
I'm not sure what Bruce Paul's credentials are, but he has inspired me, and I was hoping for some useful feedback about the substance of his thesis.

First, simply because he has inspired you says nothing about the credibility of his work. Second, I have given you useful feedback with information and evidence you can check for yourself. I, however, doubt you will do it.

 

Paul River said:
I'm sorry you're stuck on this point, Origin, but I'm not really interested in debating primacy with you in this post.

Far from being stuck on a point I have pointed out a number of problems with your claims. As long as you post faulty and\or false information I will refute it.

 

Paul River said:
I'm interested in a meaningful dialogue about this message about the Heavenly Tabernacle

I offered it. You cannot see it. The fact that you have simply glossed over all the evidence I have given speaks volumes.

 

The problem is the text of the New Testament in Rev. 1:10 was changed for personal theological reasons rather than textual ones. That is a serious problem and it is a shame you cannot see it. No Greek manuscript has shabbat, the Peshitta does not have shabbat, the Latin text does not have shabbat. No early translation of the text has shabbat. There is no evidence whatsoever that the word shabbat was ever part of the text in Rev. 1:10 and all the evidence proves it was never part of the text. Now you might not mind people changing the text of the New Testament for their own personal theological reasons but most of us do.

1840767567_Photo20Oct20242062028201720AM_zpsby3q2qpf.thumb.jpg.a506abe3c3618284946561e199c65ce3.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Origen, if you had actually read the Shem Tov Matthew book by Howard Gordan, you would know it is his opinion, as well as the prominent Hebrew scholar Nehemia Gordon, that this manuscript reflects the original Gospel of Matthew, which was originally written in Hebrew. Much evidence of this fact can be found from writings of the early church fathers:

 

Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (or sayings about Yahshua) in the Hebrew language.”(Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)

 

Saint Irenæus stated: “Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel in their own language.” (Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1.1)

 

Eusebius referenced Origen as saying: “As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.” (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)

 

For those unfamiliar to the discussion surrounding Hebrew and Aramaic primacy (that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic), it is fortunate that any ancient manuscripts have survived from the ancient world at all. The Roman Catholic Church has made concerted attempts throughout history to destroy any and every ancient Hebrew document. And the Muslims have assisted in this eradication of Semitic Biblical texts by destroying many of the Aramaic manuscripts within the Eastern church.

 

The reason Origin has an axe to grind on this point is because he is from the Church of Christ - which is doctrinal founded on requiring people to be baptized into the name of "Jesus Christ", and requires worship on Sunday. The fact that Missiah's name was never Jesus Christ, or the the Apostles continued to follow Shabbat worship, is offensive to this denomination.

 

The oldest Aramaic Book of Revelation is from the 12th century, but the point is, there is good scholarly evidence to assure us that this reference in Revelation 1:10, translated as "the Lord's Day" should really be translated as "Shabbat"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Let me clarify William - are you saying, that when the angel came to Joseph in Matthew 1:20, and Gabrel came to Mary in Luke 1:31, saying, "you shall name Him" . . . that the phonetically sounded out name "Jesus" came out of his mouth? This is what the Church of Christ believes, and categorically - every Protestant denomination does not believe this! It's really a ridiculous assertion. The letter "J' is only a resent construct (about 300 years), and the letter or the phonetically sound was not used in Hebrew or any of the extent cultures of the time. The name, "Jesus" is a derivation of a transliteration of the Hebrew name we transliterate as Joshua. And Christ is a translation of the title Messiah. Most protestant scholars know this to be true - are you suggesting otherwise?

 

And regarding types and shadows of the OT - I think you are missing the point Bruce is making. The wilderness tabernacle was the types and shadow of what really exists in heaven, as the writer of the book of Hebrews argues . . . and this very same Heavenly Tabernacle is what we are seeing in operation in the book of Revelation. How is this returning to types and shadows of the OT?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
Origen, if you had actually read the Shem Tov Matthew book by Howard Gordan, you would know it is his opinion
I have but clearly you have not. The proof is you don't even know his name. His name is George Howard not Howard Gordan.

 

Howard states:

 

In regard to theology, Shem-Tob Hebrew Matthew is heretical according to the standard of traditional Christianity. It never identifies Jesus with the Messiah. John the Baptist is given an exalted role (even takes on messianic traits), — Shem-Tob’s text envisions the salvation of the Gentiles only in the Messianic era. (p. 234)
Wow! A Gospel that does not identify Jesus as the Messiah. That is heretical. I like Greek Matthew better. It is a text which does identify Jesus as the Messiah and teaches the Gospel.

 

Now the question is, if this text really is the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew why does it not follow the teaching of the N.T.? Would the Apostle Matthew not identify Jesus as the Messiah when Greek Matthew clearly does? Paul River you just keep on following heretic texts and making false claims about a document of which you know nothing.

 

Origen as well as the prominent Hebrew scholar Nehemia Gordon, that this manuscript reflects the original Gospel of Matthew, which was originally written in Hebrew.
Nonsense! There is no evidence Shem Tov was written by the Apostle Matthew. There is no evidence it even dates back to the 1st century.

 

For those unfamiliar to the discussion surrounding Hebrew and Aramaic primacy (that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic)
Those claims are only the ravings of those who do not know any better. There is no evidence the whole of the N.T. was first composed in any other language but Greek. That is why your next two comments are historically false.

 

it is fortunate that any ancient manuscripts have survived from the ancient world at all. The Roman Catholic Church has made concerted attempts throughout history to destroy any and every ancient Hebrew document.
There is zero historical evidence anything like this ever happen.

 

And the Muslims have assisted in this eradication of Semitic Biblical texts by destroying many of the Aramaic manuscripts within the Eastern church.
Your claim makes zero sense and the sad part is you don't even know why.

 

The reason Origin has an axe to grind on this point is because he is from the Church of Christ - which is doctrinal founded on requiring people to be baptized into the name of "Jesus Christ", and requires worship on Sunday.
There you go. Now your true colors are showing. From your comments I see you know as much about the church of Christ as you do about this topic, NOTHING. Nevertheless this topic is not about that but I can see why you would want to change it given your lack of knowledge.

 

The fact that Missiah's name was never Jesus Christ, or the the Apostles continued to follow Shabbat worship, is offensive to this denomination.
At last those personal theological reasons I spoke about have come to light.

 

The oldest Aramaic Book of Revelation is from the 12th century, but the point is, there is good scholarly evidence to assure us that this reference in Revelation 1:10, translated as "the Lord's Day" should really be translated as "Shabbat"
There is none and you know it. If you had any you would have given it by now. That comment about a 12th century document was really funny. In the case of Revelation you have to use a document 12 centuries removed from the sources. Well, I guess it better than your 15 centuries so-called source Shem Tov.

 

Paul River has at last shown us all what he is really about. I never said a word about baptism in any context. I never said a word about going to church on Sunday. I addressed the text, the evidence. He cannot debate the evidence but must try and make this about me. Please everyone go back and read this thread. Noticed he cannot even address my points. The fact is Paul River has fallen into a cult. He really did not come here to discuss a video but to push false teachings. Yet he did not count on finding someone who knows the languages, the evidence, and the scholarly sources.

Edited by Origen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
And Origin, the Arimaic term for Shabbat is used in Revelation 1:10 of the Peshitta NT, for the Greek phrase "The Lord's Day"
Wrong again. If it does then it is nothing more than an interpretation of the phrase "the Lord's day" and a very poor one at that. You just keep using your 12 centuries removed from the sources Revelation and the rest of us will follow the Gospel according to Christ. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

This thread is being locked. First, River refuses stay on topic. The reason for this is clear. When one cannot answer objections they prefer to change the subject to something they think will help them regain control. River failed at this on every level. Second, rather than address the evidence and arguments River prefers to attack what he thinks I believe on subjects which no relevant to the topic at hand and in spite of the fact he has no idea what I think or believe. It is simply sad and clearly demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability to deal with the topic and his personal frustration with that inability.

Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...