You know as well as I that the authorship of Matthew is highly debated. We can have that discussion if you like, but it's a different question than the one at hand. Regardless, the author of Matthew, in the 1st century, chose phoneuó to express the wording of Jesus in Matthew 5.

As to the character of the author of Matthew, whether you read superficially or deeply, the author of Matthew comes across as an educated person of intelligence, comfortable with the technicalities of the Law, with a good grasp of his material and the story he is trying to tell. The level of Greek fits a man who was probably tried-lingual. There is nothing in the Gospel that would lead someone do discredit or even doubt his character.

If you have evidence that leads us to doubt his character or choice of term, I'd be glad to hear it. And, frankly, if ultimately the account is that unworthy, your argument fails as well as mine. Why are we discussing the author's choice of term if the whole thing is unreliable? You started off the discussion with, "The Greek work phoneuó is used in the Bible." But if the author is untrustworthy and the account is unreliable, why are you pursuing the discussion? You are making your case on the author's choice of terminology, and now you seem to be saying we can't trust the author's choice of terminology.

> The man who heard Jesus say it (Matthew) is the one who chose phoneuo as the translation. We have to trust that he was a whole lot more familiar with what Jesus said than we are, 200 years later, trying to guess what Aramaic word Jesus used...We can conclusively exclude "kill" because of Matthew's choice of Greek word. Without a conclusive exclusion of "kill", the dual meaning of kill and murder has to remain.

Which confirmed author has documented Mathew's was the person who choose phoneuó?

Which confirmed author has documented Mathew's character to be trustworthy?

Which confirmed author documents Mathew's translation skills to be trustworthy?

Which confirmed author states Matthew choose phoneuó as the translation?

The man who heard Jesus say it (Matthew) is the one who chose phoneuo as the translation. We have to trust that he was a whole lot more familiar with what Jesus said than we are, 200 years later, trying to guess what Aramaic word Jesus used. Based on Matthew's choice of Greek, we can conclusively state that what he was saying was "murder" and not just "kill" in a general sense.

> Without a conclusive exclusion of "kill", the dual meaning of kill and murder has to remain.

We can conclusively exclude "kill" because of Matthew's choice of Greek word. Nor is it legitimate to say, "Well, he didn't explicitly exclude apokteino, anaireo, thuo, thanatao, diacheirizo, and/or sphazo, so the dual meaning has to remain." That line of reasoning doesn't carry meritorious strength.

If there is no original and a copy of possible numerous copies and Jesus said, 'Put away your sword,” Jesus told him. “Those who use the sword will die by the sword." Then it's possible Jesus ment both not to kill and murder.'

I agree you're quotes supports the interpretation of murder, but you can not conclusively exclude "kill". Without a conclusive exclusion of "kill", the dual meaning of kill and murder has to remain.

There is no such thing. There is no original Aramaic manuscript detailing Jesus's sermon on the mount, or with his words in that language. It doesn't exist, and possibly never existed.

Does anyone know what's in the original Aramaic manuscript which details Jesus's sermon on the mount, and can scribes and translators make mistakes in translations?

We can't possibly know the Aramaic, so we can only go by the Greek terms. The Greeks had several terms for kill, so it's instructive to us that the NT writers chose the one that means "murder."

- Apokteino: "kill; to deprive a person of life." It can mean kill or execute, it is used for suicide, and it can be used metaphorically. It is used when someone is killed, for instance, by a falling tower (Lk. 13.4) or by disease (Rev. 9.18).
- Anaireo: "kill; murder." General word for destroy and abolish. It is used for killing in warfare, by capital punishment, murder, suicide, or assassination. Also used of killing for sacrifices.
- Thuo: "to kill for a sacrifice." And therefore also "slaughter." Even human sacrifice.
- Phoneuo: "murder; kill by violence; to slay intentionally; to kill in personal revenge."
- Thanatao: "To put to death." Used of capital punishment. Used of spiritual death.
- Diacheirizo: "to lay hands on to kill; murder."
- Sphazo: "To slay or slaughter for sacrifice; to butcher or murder."

Since the NT writers chose phoneuo in the contexts they did shows us the intent of what they were trying to say. Whatever Aramaic term was used, our author chose to express it with the term phoneuo. That's what we know.

Understandable. But how do you know conclusively that "murder" and its supporting texts where the original sentences used in the original manuscripts, in Aramaic?

You misunderstand the concept of omnipotence. It certainly doesn't mean that God can do anything, but only that God can do anything that are proper objects of his power. He cannot do things that are contradictory (make a square circle), and he cannot make communication that doesn't need to be interpreted. Interpretation is a necessary component of communication. Almost all words have more than one meaning, and even when they don't, context can change how they were intended.

So, no, it is not minutely possible that I am specifying a word that could have been meant to be both meanings when it was stated, in this particular case.

If the god you believe in can literally state and be specific enough to detail who are blessed in the beatitudes, then By you applying what he states elsewhere to interpret a word with two meaning, when clearly your god knows how to be specific, is it minutely possible you are specifying a word that could have been meant to be both meanings when it was stated, thou shall not phoneuó (kill and murder)?