- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 04 2012,22:15) You keep switching up info with mike first you said God was Jesus and his Father and then later you started claiming that Jesus was lord and the Father was God so you put the 2 together as “lord God” but when he accepts your own definition and says “God” made all things suddenly Jesus switches over from “lord” to God.
Good stuff, Asana.
We know that John 1:3 means AFTER God first created the “beginning of the creation by God”, everything ELSE was made through that first creation. But I sensed that Kathi was going to say that since “nothing came into existence without Jesus”, then Jesus must have ALWAYS been in existence.
That is why I used the Eccl scripture. Because we could illogically claim that since God is the Maker of ALL things, He must have then MADE HIMSELF.
But, since we are SENSIBLE people, we understand that when it says God made ALL things, it is with the EXCEPTION of Himself – obviously.
Likewise, since we are SENSIBLE people, we understand that when John 1:3 says nothing has come into existence that did not come into existence through Jesus, it is with the EXCEPTION of Jesus himself, who obviously was not created through himself.
(And whether or not Kathi will admit it, I still believe that is the point she was going to try to make – and I successfully nipped it in the bud – as intended.
)Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,16:55) I am not stopping my life's activities because you cannot accept it without a mountain of proof.
What “mountain of proof”?
So far, you have posted the words from some dude whose name and credentials I don't even know – who says that “marya” equals “the Lord Jehovah”.
I have posted three times that amount of information that says “marya” is simply the emphatic form of “lord”.
You have made claims that the NT was originally written in Aramaic, although the earliest Aramaic NT known to us dates to 275 AD. And it is CLEAR that the first one did NOT even contain the epistles, but only the four gospels.
So you have been posting scriptures from the epistles in which Jesus was supposedly called “the Lord Jehovah the Messiah”, when:
1. The epistles weren't even a part of the first Aramaic NT.
2. The Aramaic word “marya” doesn't even mean “the Lord Jehovah”.Is this the “mountain of proof” that you're talking about?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:15) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Jesus is called a god in most Bibles, Kathi. Actually, He is called God in most Bibles, Mike. I do not see any that say 'a god' apart from the doctored NWT.
What you see is that in every Greek ms, John 1:1 speaks of one who is called “THE god”, and one who is called “god”.
Do you seriously think that by capping the “G” for ONLY the “Most High God”, the NWT is in error? Would you have them cap the “G” in EVERY mention of the word “god”? Would you call Satan the “God of this age”?
Only the MOST HIGH God gets the capped “G” as far as I'm concerned.
From the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.Do you see that there are THREE possibilities in translating John 1:1c? Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”? Now, tell me how the NWT “doctored” their translation in this regard?
More from NETNotes:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)………Do you see that these 25 TRINITARIAN scholars recognize what you can't see? They recognize that if the Word was with “THE God”, then the Word couldn't possibly be “THE God”.
So you tell me: Is the Word “THE God”, or “a god” who was with “THE God”? Which one did John actually teach?
And please tell me how the NWT is “doctored” because they choose to cap the “G” in “God” only when it refers to the MOST HIGH God.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:15) Oh, ok, then explain how God created the sun to the class, Teacher Mike.
I can't explain the “how” of it, Kathi, because we aren't told the “how” of it.But I can explain that since God CREATED the sun, it means God existed BEFORE the sun. Surely you can accept this fact too, right?
Likewise, I don't know “how” God begot His Son Jesus, but I can explain that since God BEGOT him (brought him forth into existence), it means that God existed BEFORE His begotten Son. But I suspect that for personal reasons, the “SON” example isn't as easily accepted by you as the “SUN” example, huh?
So which one of us has our bias showing? (You better cover it up before someone sees it. Oops – too late!
)Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:28) BD,
In light of the Father being the only true God, Jesus is the only true Begotten God. There is no conflict there.So, with that understanding, yes, Jesus said that and no, He was not mistaken.
Swhen Jesus says that The Father is greater than he is do you understand that to mean that the Unbegotten God is greater than the begotten God?Also Kathi Jesus declares that The Father is The Only “true” God wouldn't that mean God of any type? Here is the Problem Jesus claims that the God he worships he worships along with the other Jews:
John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.So clearly you can see here that Jesus is specifically saying that the God he Worships is the only true God of any type and at the same time he is telling you Kathi that you don't know what you worship Jesus is flat out condemning your view of worship of even him as “God” because he is telling you that what the Jews believe about the identity of God is correct because they KNOW what they worship and NO ORTHODIX JEW ON THE PLANET will ever worship JESUS as GOD and JESUS is telling you they KNOW What they worship but seriously Kathi you do not know what you worship Jesus then says:
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jesus is telling you who to worship and explaining to you who he worships and yet you still do not know what to worship.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2012,11:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:03) Imagine if you will, that the sun always existed in its complete developed state, the rays would have always existed then also. Get it?
Imagine now that it was said the sun existed in the beginning, and at some point before the ages, the sun begot its rays.Would you STILL think that the rays were always right there along with the sun?
Mike,
I would say that the rays came from within the sun and were always within the sun till the sun began to shine forth. There would be no need for the sun to shine forth if there were nothing to shine on.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2012,11:48) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,16:55) I am not stopping my life's activities because you cannot accept it without a mountain of proof.
What “mountain of proof”?So far, you have posted the words from some dude whose name and credentials I don't even know – who says that “marya” equals “the Lord Jehovah”.
I have posted three times that amount of information that says “marya” is simply the emphatic form of “lord”.
You have made claims that the NT was originally written in Aramaic, although the earliest Aramaic NT known to us dates to 275 AD. And it is CLEAR that the first one did NOT even contain the epistles, but only the four gospels.
So you have been posting scriptures from the epistles in which Jesus was supposedly called “the Lord Jehovah the Messiah”, when:
1. The epistles weren't even a part of the first Aramaic NT.
2. The Aramaic word “marya” doesn't even mean “the Lord Jehovah”.Is this the “mountain of proof” that you're talking about?
Gee, off the top of my head,
I have shown you this:Quote Here is what page 54 and 55 from the intro of the Hebraic Roots Version says about the placement of the name YHWH and how it is objective and not subjective: The Sacred Name
In the past, sacred name versions of the New Testament have depended largely
on guesswork to determine where “Lord” means YHWH and where “Lord” means
ADON/ADONAI. This is because the Greek New Testament (at least as we have it
today) does not distinguish between the two, having Greek KURIOS for both YHWH and
ADON/ADONAI. However we know from both the Tosefta and Talmuds (ancient Jewish
writings) that certain New Testament manuscripts contained the name of YHWH in their
text (t.Shab. 13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c). Now our Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts
preserve for us knowledge of where “Lord” in the NT was YHWH and where it was
ADON/ADONAI. The DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew repeats the Hebrew
letter YUD two or three times encircled as to mark places where the name of YHWH
should go. The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew has the Hebrew letter HEY
standing alone (and in one place the word HASHEM spelled out) to mark places where
the name of YHWH belongs. The Munster Hebrew text of Matthew actually contains the
name of YHWH spelled out where it belongs. The Old Syriac, Peshitta and Crawford
Aramaic manuscripts of NT books also distinguish between YHWH and
ADON/ADONAI. As a rule103 the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak (Old Testament) renders
EL/ELOAH/ELOHIM with ALAHA; ADONAI/ADON with MAR and YHWH with MARYA. For Example:
Psalm 110:1a Hebrew: YHWH said to my ADON…
Psalm 110:1a Aramaic: MARYA said to my MAR…
This pattern continues through the Aramaic NT as well. These Aramaic manuscripts
have Aramaic MARYA for YHWH and Aramaic MAR (or MARI or MARAN) for
ADON/ADONAI. Now we have objective manuscript evidence to support placement of
the sacred name into the NT text, the era of guesswork is over. The Hebraic Roots
Version will be the first “sacred name” NT to use such objective manuscript evidence to
restore the sacred name to the New Testament.Info on Aramaic primacy from this work entitled “Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek” with the list of contents here:
Quote Foreword 003
Introduction 004
1. Split Words – Undeniable Evidence of Peshitta Primacy 008
2. Semi Split Words 050
3. Poetry and Word Plays 075
4. Semitic Idioms 094
5. Miscellaneous Proofs – Minor Variants, Loan Words, Bad Greek Grammar and More 105
6. Historical (External) Proofs 128
7. Contradictions in the Greek New Testament Prove Peshitta Primacy 151
8. I Don’t Know Aramaic, What Hope is There for Me? 171
Feature 1 – The Greek of the GNT is not Koine Greek 173
Feature 2 – A Lengthy Refutation of Old Syriac (OS) Primacy 193
Feature 3 – Mistranslating the Genealogies of Yeshua 228
Feature 4 – Bible Word-Pairs and Codes Indicate Peshitta Primacy and Divine
Inspiration
244
Listing of Sub-topics for Chapters 1-7 264
Appendix A – The Deceptive Nature of Greek Primacy 268
Appendix B – Introduction to the Lamsa Bible 271
Appendix C – Reader Comments 283
Appendix D – The Aramaic Peshitta Saves Faiths 291
Appendix E – Notes for Future Editions 292I have linked you to what this man in the late 1800's has written concerning the Jewish Targums which were the Aramaic translations of the OT to show how the YHWH was indicated in the Aramaic. Remember this:
Quote The authors of the Septuagint Version under the influence of the Palestinian feeling with regard to the Holy Name do not give it a literal expression but render it by 6 Kvptos the Lord and Yehovah Elohim by Kvpios 6 0eo The old Syriac Version for Yehovah employs the title Morio the Lord The Syrians considered this name with its four letters MRIA to correspond with the Hebrew Tetragram (Hebrew letters go here-K) and the letters themselves as the initials of words symbolical of the Divine Nature the first m standing for morutho dominion the second r for rabbutho majesty or greatness the third and fourth i a for aithutho essential being Morio The Lord is distinguished from the common form of Mar a lord and is never used but as an appellation of the Deity. In the Chaldee Targums Yehovah is always expressed by Yeya from page 10 here:
http://books.google.com/books?i….f=falseThere were several things that I linked you to Mike regarding either the Aramaic word that always refers to YHWH or the Aramaic Primacy in about four different threads. These are just a few. Read that last one that I quoted here. What do you think of that?
Quote So you have been posting scriptures from the epistles in which Jesus was supposedly called “the Lord Jehovah the Messiah”, when:
1. The epistles weren't even a part of the first Aramaic NT.
2. The Aramaic word “marya” doesn't even mean “the Lord Jehovah”.1. The writings of Paul were in the first Aramaic NT, the Peshitta. The Peshitta does not contain, however, four of the General Epistles (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude), the book of Revelation, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8
.) These writings are not considered canonical by the Church of the East, and have never been included in the the Canon of the Peshitta.2.A word was used in the OT by the Jews who translated the Hebrew OT into the Aramaic OT to substitute for YHWH. It seems that different translators chose different words depending on their dialect. That word was only used for YHWH in the OT. The NT Aramaic manuscripts continue to use that word that was used in the OT for YHWH in their writings.
Also, I didn't say that I GAVE you a mountain of proof, I said that I am not stopping my life's activities because you cannot accept this without a mountain of proof.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2012,12:03) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:15) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) Jesus is called a god in most Bibles, Kathi. Actually, He is called God in most Bibles, Mike. I do not see any that say 'a god' apart from the doctored NWT.
What you see is that in every Greek ms, John 1:1 speaks of one who is called “THE god”, and one who is called “god”.
Do you seriously think that by capping the “G” for ONLY the “Most High God”, the NWT is in error? Would you have them cap the “G” in EVERY mention of the word “god”? Would you call Satan the “God of this age”?
Only the MOST HIGH God gets the capped “G” as far as I'm concerned.
From the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars of NETNotes:
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.Do you see that there are THREE possibilities in translating John 1:1c? Do you see that one of those possibilities is “a god”? Now, tell me how the NWT “doctored” their translation in this regard?
More from NETNotes:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”)………Do you see that these 25 TRINITARIAN scholars recognize what you can't see? They recognize that if the Word was with “THE God”, then the Word couldn't possibly be “THE God”.
So you tell me: Is the Word “THE God”, or “a god” who was with “THE God”? Which one did John actually teach?
And please tell me how the NWT is “doctored” because they choose to cap the “G” in “God” only when it refers to the MOST HIGH God.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Mike,
What you see in John 1:18 is THE only begotten God. Not 'a' begotten God.That is only 17 verses after 'the word was God.'
So, if you place 'the only begotten God' into verse 1, then you have my understanding…
In the beginning was the word and the word was with the God and the word was the only begotten God. There you have the only begotten God who was with the God in the beginning.The NWT is the only one that assumes an 'a' in John 1:1 when it is a 'the' in v. 18.
Also, Col 1:16 adds the word 'other'
16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,
The word 'other' is not in the Greek or Aramaic. That is adding to scripture.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2012,12:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:15) Oh, ok, then explain how God created the sun to the class, Teacher Mike.
I can't explain the “how” of it, Kathi, because we aren't told the “how” of it.But I can explain that since God CREATED the sun, it means God existed BEFORE the sun. Surely you can accept this fact too, right?
Likewise, I don't know “how” God begot His Son Jesus, but I can explain that since God BEGOT him (brought him forth into existence), it means that God existed BEFORE His begotten Son. But I suspect that for personal reasons, the “SON” example isn't as easily accepted by you as the “SUN” example, huh?
So which one of us has our bias showing? (You better cover it up before someone sees it. Oops – too late!
)
Mike,Quote Likewise, I don't know “how” God begot His Son Jesus, but I can explain that since God BEGOT him (brought him forth into existence), it means that God existed BEFORE His begotten Son. Begot means to bring forth into existence that which was in existence within when 'begot' refers to birth. So, the only thing that you can assume was not that one existed before the other but one was able to bring another out into existence from a place where He already existed within. The fact that God begot the Son does not say anything about conceiving the Son or creating the Son.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 05 2012,13:57) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:28) BD,
In light of the Father being the only true God, Jesus is the only true Begotten God. There is no conflict there.So, with that understanding, yes, Jesus said that and no, He was not mistaken.
Swhen Jesus says that The Father is greater than he is do you understand that to mean that the Unbegotten God is greater than the begotten God?
BD,
Yes, but only in the manner that a father would be in more authority over a son. I believe their natures are equal.Sorta like a husband is greater as far as authority over his wife but their natures are equal.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 05 2012,14:11) Also Kathi Jesus declares that The Father is The Only “true” God wouldn't that mean God of any type? Here is the Problem Jesus claims that the God he worships he worships along with the other Jews: John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.So clearly you can see here that Jesus is specifically saying that the God he Worships is the only true God of any type and at the same time he is telling you Kathi that you don't know what you worship Jesus is flat out condemning your view of worship of even him as “God” because he is telling you that what the Jews believe about the identity of God is correct because they KNOW what they worship and NO ORTHODIX JEW ON THE PLANET will ever worship JESUS as GOD and JESUS is telling you they KNOW What they worship but seriously Kathi you do not know what you worship Jesus then says:
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jesus is telling you who to worship and explaining to you who he worships and yet you still do not know what to worship.
BD,
The Jews worshiped God and the Word of God which they understood as a separate personality from what I can tell from the Targums. See this here:http://oneinmessiah.net/TargumMemraTheWordOfGod.htm
“One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God.”
Please read this to see that the Jews had an understanding that the 'Word of God' was a separate personality. They worshiped the 'Word of God' and 'God' from what the Targums tell us.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2012,08:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 05 2012,14:11) Also Kathi Jesus declares that The Father is The Only “true” God wouldn't that mean God of any type? Here is the Problem Jesus claims that the God he worships he worships along with the other Jews: John 4:22
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.So clearly you can see here that Jesus is specifically saying that the God he Worships is the only true God of any type and at the same time he is telling you Kathi that you don't know what you worship Jesus is flat out condemning your view of worship of even him as “God” because he is telling you that what the Jews believe about the identity of God is correct because they KNOW what they worship and NO ORTHODIX JEW ON THE PLANET will ever worship JESUS as GOD and JESUS is telling you they KNOW What they worship but seriously Kathi you do not know what you worship Jesus then says:
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jesus is telling you who to worship and explaining to you who he worships and yet you still do not know what to worship.
BD,
The Jews worshiped God and the Word of God which they understood as a separate personality from what I can tell from the Targums. See this here:http://oneinmessiah.net/TargumMemraTheWordOfGod.htm
“One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God.”
Please read this to see that the Jews had an understanding that the 'Word of God' was a separate personality. They worshiped the 'Word of God' and 'God' from what the Targums tell us.
It doesn't matter what “first century Jews had come to understand” Because Jesus made the statement in the Bible that the Jews at his time including himself worshipped God whom they knew as the Father and ONLY THAT GOD did they WORSHIP. Jesus and all Jews worshipped this same God aALL jews today still worship this same God.You see, playing with the scriptures and digging up extra info can't erase that Jesus said “WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP”
Just like when Jesus said to Mary “MY GOD and YOUR GOD”
Jesus was telling Mary that the very same God that she prayed to hoping Jesus was okay is the very same God that Jesus prayed to in the garden of gethsemane.
Mary KNEW what she worshipped and she knew that this Jesus was THE CHRIST of GOD, sent to us FROM GOD ut you don't believe in CHRIST you are against this notion of a Christ you are in-fact ANTI-CHRIST trying to lift Christ above the throne of God. Kathi…Jesus is CHRIST and not God, If he is God then there is no Christ nor any need for a Christ
BD,
“Targum fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that use of written targumim can be dated to pre-Christian times, and eventually two of these written Targumim, Targum Onqelos on the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan on the Prophets gained official status, and were specifically designated for use in synagogue services.”The 'Word of God' as a divine entity within God Himself was worshiped as God before Christian times. Did you not read the whole article?
Quote You see, playing with the scriptures and digging up extra info can't erase that Jesus said “WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP” This is not just 'extra info' this is Jewish understanding of the OT before the Christian era to show you what the Jews knew to worship…God and the Word of God. They didn't realize that the Word of God was the Son of God at the time before the Christian era.
Quote Just like when Jesus said to Mary “MY GOD and YOUR GOD”
The Father is His God and Mary's God but Jesus is the Word of God and that is Mary's LORD.Quote Jesus was telling Mary that the very same God that she prayed to hoping Jesus was okay is the very same God that Jesus prayed to in the garden of gethsemane. Yes, I agree but I am trying to tell you that 'the Word of God' was also who the Jews thought of as the God as He revealed Himself.
The Memra is God and is worshiped as such:
Gen. 28: [20] And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, [21] So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If the Word [Memra] of YHVH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word [Memra] of Lord be my God.
Quote Mary KNEW what she worshipped and she knew that this Jesus was THE CHRIST of GOD, sent to us FROM GOD ut you don't believe in CHRIST you are against this notion of a Christ you are in-fact ANTI-CHRIST trying to lift Christ above the throne of God. Kathi…Jesus is CHRIST and not God, If he is God then there is no Christ nor any need for a Christ Have I ever said that Christ is above God or above the Father? Have I ever said that Jesus is God the Father? NO!
Quote If he is God then there is no Christ nor any need for a Christ He is the only begotten God that was sent to be the Christ. He is not God the Father. God the Father was not sent to be the Christ. Why do you keep getting confused between the never begotten God, the Father, and the begotten God?
To say that Christ was not the only begotten God is anti-christ; lowering Christ to someone less than the only begotten God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:06) Gee, off the top of my head,
I have shown you this:Quote Here is what page 54 and 55 from the intro of the Hebraic Roots Version says about the placement of the name YHWH and how it is objective and not subjective: The Sacred Name
In the past, sacred name versions of the New Testament have depended largely
on guesswork to determine where “Lord” means YHWH and where “Lord” means
ADON/ADONAI. This is because the Greek New Testament (at least as we have it
today) does not distinguish between the two, having Greek KURIOS for both YHWH and
ADON/ADONAI. However we know from both the Tosefta and Talmuds (ancient Jewish
writings) that certain New Testament manuscripts contained the name of YHWH in their
text (t.Shab. 13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c). Now our Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts
preserve for us knowledge of where “Lord” in the NT was YHWH and where it was
ADON/ADONAI. The DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew repeats the Hebrew
letter YUD two or three times encircled as to mark places where the name of YHWH
should go. The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew has the Hebrew letter HEY
standing alone (and in one place the word HASHEM spelled out) to mark places where
the name of YHWH belongs. The Munster Hebrew text of Matthew actually contains the
name of YHWH spelled out where it belongs. The Old Syriac, Peshitta and Crawford
Aramaic manuscripts of NT books also distinguish between YHWH and
ADON/ADONAI. As a rule103 the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak (Old Testament) renders
EL/ELOAH/ELOHIM with ALAHA; ADONAI/ADON with MAR and YHWH with MARYA. For Example:
Psalm 110:1a Hebrew: YHWH said to my ADON…
Psalm 110:1a Aramaic: MARYA said to my MAR…
This pattern continues through the Aramaic NT as well. These Aramaic manuscripts
have Aramaic MARYA for YHWH and Aramaic MAR (or MARI or MARAN) for
ADON/ADONAI. Now we have objective manuscript evidence to support placement of
the sacred name into the NT text, the era of guesswork is over. The Hebraic Roots
Version will be the first “sacred name” NT to use such objective manuscript evidence to
restore the sacred name to the New Testament.
Kathi,Could you point me to the part where we're taught that the Aramaic word “marya” MEANS “the Lord Jehovah”?
Also, perhaps you could tell us why I have been able show you FOUR different Aramaic dictionaries and FOUR different English translations of the Aramaic NT where the word “marya” simply means “lord”.
Thanks.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,13:14) Mike,
I would say that the rays came from within the sun and were always within the sun till the sun began to shine forth.
Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:17) Mike,
What you see in John 1:18 is THE only begotten God. Not 'a' begotten God.
Yes, in SOME mss, we see “the only begotten god”. (In others, we see “the only begotten son”.)But what do you see in 2 Corintians 4:4? Do you see “THE god of this world”? Shall we equate Satan with Jehovah and Jesus too?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:17) The NWT is the only one that assumes an 'a' in John 1:1 when it is a 'the' in v. 18.
Well, the word “the” is implied in 1:18 because of the word “monogenes” (ONLY begotten), so why wouldn't they translate it as such? As for 1:1, does it say, “and the Word was THE god”? If it doesn't, then why would the NWT translate it as such? Even the NETNotes Trinitarians acknowledge that “THE god” could not be with “THE god”. So what other choice does that leave us with? If the Word was not “THE god” he was with, then he must have been a DIFFERENT god, ergo “A god” who was with “THE god”.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:17) Also, Col 1:16 adds the word 'other'
16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,
The word 'other' is not in the Greek or Aramaic. That is adding to scripture.
Well, since we're told many places that Jesus was “brought forth into existence”, “begotten”, and “created”, and we can assume that Jesus didn't create himself, then the word “other” in Col 1:16 is obviously implied. (Just like the words “with the exception of himself” are implied in John 1:3 and Eccl 11:5.)But which one of the following translations will you call “doctored” for adding the implied “other”:
2 Kings 25:28
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He treated him well and gave him a special position higher than the other kings who were with him in Babylon.New International Version (©1984)
………higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.New Living Translation (©2007)
………higher place than all the other exiled kings in Babylon.NLT ©
………over all the other exiled kings in Babylon.MSG ©
………..experienced by the other political prisoners held in Babylon.BBE ©
…………the other kings who were with him in Babylon.NRSV ©
………a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon.NET ©
………..than the other kings who were with him in Babylon.How about these following translations? Which one of the translators “doctored” the Bible by adding the implied “other”:
Luke 11:42
English Standard Version (©2001)
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
………without neglecting the others.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
……..and not to leave the other undone.International Standard Version (©2008)
…………..without neglecting the others.Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
……….you should forsake the other!”GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
………….without ignoring the others.King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
…….these ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone.American King James Version
…….and not to leave the other undone.American Standard Version
……and not to leave the other undone.Douay-Rheims Bible
……and not to leave the other undone.English Revised Version
………..and not to leave the other undone.Webster's Bible Translation
…..and not to leave the others undone.Weymouth New Testament
………..while not neglecting the others.World English Bible
………..and not to have left the other undone.NET Bible
……..without neglecting the others.BBE ©
………….and not let the others be undone.NRSV ©
…….without neglecting the others.NKJV ©
………without leaving the others undone.Will you only condemn the NWT for adding an obviously implied “other”? Or will you condemn all of these translations as well?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:24) Begot means to bring forth into existence that which was in existence within when 'begot' refers to birth.
And what thing was ever brought forth into existence which had already existed from eternity?Any examples?
Kathi, this grows tiresome after a while. It is clear that you WANT Jesus to have existed from eternity – even as you acknowledge he was begotten by his own God. But WANTING something and being able to prove it scripturally appears to be two different things.
You cannot prove that “begot” in reference to Jesus means anything other than it means in reference to anything else that was ever begotten. You WANT that to be the case, but the scriptures don't even HINT at such a thing.
Likewise, you WANT Jesus to be named YHWH, but there is no scripture that even HINTS at such a thing. The Most High God is named “YHWH”, and His Son is named “Jesus”. I've even showed you scripture where Jehovah “puts His name in/on” certain ones of those He created and formed.
When you find some actual PROOF of any of these things you WANT to be true, let me know, okay?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2012,15:08) BD,
“Targum fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that use of written targumim can be dated to pre-Christian times, and eventually two of these written Targumim, Targum Onqelos on the Pentateuch and Targum Jonathan on the Prophets gained official status, and were specifically designated for use in synagogue services.”The 'Word of God' as a divine entity within God Himself was worshiped as God before Christian times. Did you not read the whole article?
Quote You see, playing with the scriptures and digging up extra info can't erase that Jesus said “WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP” This is not just 'extra info' this is Jewish understanding of the OT before the Christian era to show you what the Jews knew to worship…God and the Word of God. They didn't realize that the Word of God was the Son of God at the time before the Christian era.
Quote Just like when Jesus said to Mary “MY GOD and YOUR GOD”
The Father is His God and Mary's God but Jesus is the Word of God and that is Mary's LORD.Quote Jesus was telling Mary that the very same God that she prayed to hoping Jesus was okay is the very same God that Jesus prayed to in the garden of gethsemane. Yes, I agree but I am trying to tell you that 'the Word of God' was also who the Jews thought of as the God as He revealed Himself.
The Memra is God and is worshiped as such:
Gen. 28: [20] And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, [21] So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If the Word [Memra] of YHVH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word [Memra] of Lord be my God.
Quote Mary KNEW what she worshipped and she knew that this Jesus was THE CHRIST of GOD, sent to us FROM GOD ut you don't believe in CHRIST you are against this notion of a Christ you are in-fact ANTI-CHRIST trying to lift Christ above the throne of God. Kathi…Jesus is CHRIST and not God, If he is God then there is no Christ nor any need for a Christ Have I ever said that Christ is above God or above the Father? Have I ever said that Jesus is God the Father? NO!
Quote If he is God then there is no Christ nor any need for a Christ He is the only begotten God that was sent to be the Christ. He is not God the Father. God the Father was not sent to be the Christ. Why do you keep getting confused between the never begotten God, the Father, and the begotten God?
To say that Christ was not the only begotten God is anti-christ; lowering Christ to someone less than the only begotten God.
You definitely keep trying to equate the two. Jesus is not the God of the Father in anyway shape or form. The Fact is an UNBEGOTTEN God is GREATER than a BEGOTTEN GOD and therefore ONLY ONE IS TRULY GOD as Jesus said and you resist agreeing on the only critical point that we have presented here.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
