- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
you said:Quote We were discussing 1 Cor 8:6, Kathi. That's why I said what I said. And just like 1 Cor 8:6 ruins your “two YHWH” doctrine by calling Jesus ALONE our “one YHWHs”, this Luke passage seems to teach that both the Father AND the Messiah are “the LORD YHWH” – ruining your “one is 'God' and the other is 'Lord' ” claim. Hold on Mike,
The context distinguishes one as YHWH the Messiah, the other as YHWH in Luke. The two YHWH doctrine says that one of them is YHWH, the Son who is the Messiah. This one is not the Father. The two YHWH doctrine remains a viable doctrine because there really is one Lord YHWH Yeshua, the Messiah in the two YHWH doctrine…there also is one YHWH, the Father who is called our one God, the Father in 1 Cor 8:6.Mike,
you said:Quote I personally think the Aramaic NT is a TRANSLATION from the Greek, like the info I posted on the other thread attested to. (Don't forget that in that info I posted, they said, “One thing is CERTAIN – the earliest Aramaic NT's didn't contain any of the epistles”.) So at the most, you could try to use the four gospels to help you prove that Jesus is YHWH – but that is it. Like I said in the other thread, if you go to this link:
http://aramaicnt.com/articles.htm
and click on “Does the Peshitta stem from the Old Syriac?” and then actually read it, you will understand how this four gospel thing came about without the epistles.After you read this, then you will see that the whole NT was written in Aramaic/Hebrew and can be used to prove that Jesus is YHWH the Messiah, (not YHWH, the Father).
Mike,
Let me clarify my last post. The whole NT was written in Aramaic/Hebrew and can be used to prove that Jesus is YHWH the Messiah. It also can be used to prove that the Father is YHWH. It is not saying that they are both the same YHWH but there are two persons called YHWH as well as the unity they make.Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2012,01:25) Mike,
Paul did not write Romans in Greek, Tertius did.
Paul didn't personally write any of his letters, from what it seems. At the end of many of them, he'll make mention that he is signing his name personally, making it obvious that someone else wrote down what he dictated in the rest of the letter.But what does that have to do with Aramaic? The letters Paul dictated were to be sent GREEK speaking people, not to Jews. Why on earth would he dictate them in Aramaic, or have them written in Aramaic?
Kathi, there is MUCH about this claim of yours that doesn't add up. I just haven't yet decided if it's worth my time to thoroughly investigate it or not.
Is there any way to determine what the common people spoke back there at that time? It almost seems odd to me that it's not easier to figure this out, or that somewhere, some ancient didn't say what they were written in.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2012,01:42) ……….you will understand how this four gospel thing came about without the epistles.
Why can't you just tell us?Quote (david @ July 31 2012,20:08) Is there any way to determine what the common people spoke back there at that time? It almost seems odd to me that it's not easier to figure this out, or that somewhere, some ancient didn't say what they were written in.
Hi David,
Read what Josephus, a Jewish Historian of Jesus' day wrote:You can read his writings here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xxi.xi.htmlFor those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.
As you can see, Greek is not the Jews common language. Josephus wrote in Aramaic and spoke in Aramaic as did the Jews in that area. Before the Babylon captivity, Hebrew was the language of the Jews but during their captivity in Babylon, they adapted the Aramaic language which was spoken there.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 31 2012,20:08) Quote (Lightenup @ July 31 2012,01:42) ……….you will understand how this four gospel thing came about without the epistles.
Why can't you just tell us?
Mike,
I would just be repeating what the linked article already says. Why do you want me to spoon feed you? Just read the article, please! My time is valuable too, ya know.Kathi,
This is from the site you linked:
This would date the Peshitta to around 175 AD at the absolute latest. That’s pretty impressive, considering that the New Testament is believed to have been completed around 100 AD.
This jibes with the Wiki info I posted for you. It seems that the Syrians were among the first to TRANSLATE the scriptures from Greek to Aramaic.
What I've gleened from the info you linked me to is this:
- The Apostles supposedly handed the books to the people who then “produced” the Pershitta – which says nothing about the language those books were written in IF in fact the story is true.
- Tatian created a mixed gospel version in 175 AD – the earliest known date of any Pershitta.
- Rabulla didn't like the un-authentic “mixed gospel” translation, and set out to produce a Syriac version that was more like the original, SEPARATE books that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John independently wrote. He translated this version into Syrian from the GREEK mss.
Kathi, this info does NOTHING in the way of claiming the NT writers wrote in Aramaic. In fact, it produces more questions than it answers. The writer of the info himself is baffled as to why Rabulla would translate from the Greek to write his Aramaic version. I'm baffled as to why there was a need of his “Separate Gospels” book in the first place, if the original Syrian NT already HAD the gospels written as separate books.
Anyway, read this:
The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St. John's fragment, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library (Gr. P. 457), Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.Although Rylands 52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.
That's earlier than the first ASSUMED Aramaic NT, and way earlier than any Aramaic NT fragment that has actually been FOUND, right?
Now, I used up an hour or so of my time doing a little research on this; and I will probably someday look into it a little deeper. But unless you have any CONCRETE proof that even HINTS at the claim that the NT writers wrote their letters in Aramaic, I find it reckless of you to start quoting this version on every thread just because YOU THINK it agrees with your “Two YHWH” doctrine.
Have you read jammin's posts, Kathi? Have you noticed how he quotes only the doctored, Trinitarian translations where it is clear to everyone that words have been ADDED in an attempt to FORCE the text into saying Jesus is God Almighty? This is how I see what you are now doing.
So far, all you know for sure is that in about 175 AD, there existed a TRANSLATION of the gospels in Aramaic, in which the four gospels were mixed all together into one. That “proof” seems a little weak, don't you think?
Mike,
I think that you are jumping to conclusions by saying that since the Peshitta was dated at 175 AD AT THE LATEST so therefore, since the NT is believed to be completed around 100 AD, it was a translation. That would just be a guess. There is much to study here…nothing concrete in dates. What makes sense to me is that the originals were written by the men in their mother tongue and then translated into Greek and the original would include a special designation for where YHWH is intended.There really is so much more to this to learn about, wouldn't you agree?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,13:20) There really is so much more to this to learn about, wouldn't you agree?
I do agree.But let's put everything in your favor for a minute. Let's assume that the original NT WAS written in Aramaic. What then have you proved?
See Kathi, your only reason for hoping the NT was orginally written in Aramaic is because you have been told that the Aramaic word “marya”, which is used of Jesus in the Aramaic NT, actually means “the Lord Jehovah”.
But that is absolutely NOT the case, as the word “marya” is simply the emphatic form of the Aramaic word for “lord” – just as “adonay” is the emphatic form of the Hebrew word for “lord”.
And just as “adonay” doesn't actually mean “Jehovah”, “marya” doesn't actually mean “Jehovah”, or “the Lord Jehovah”.
So you are doing all this talking and posting of doctored scriptures with the understanding that your point is proved because “marya” means “the Lord Jehovah”……………BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.
So what does that leave you with, besides the four gospels written in the Aramaic language, in which Jesus is many times called “Lord”?
Mike,
Jesus is called LORD YHWH in the Aramaic language. Anyway, let's keep this discussion in the Peshitta thread or the discussion with BD thread, ok.Hi,
Here is a delusion of wakeup's
“There must be some things that I have not discovered yet.
But the bulk of it I have discovered.”Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 18 2014,15:05) Hi,
Here is a delusion of wakeup's
“There must be some things that I have not discovered yet.
But the bulk of it I have discovered.”
Hi NickThat is just an honest man, giving an honest statement saying that he does not claim to know it all. There's a few things that must still puzzle him, but he's found most of his answers.
So if he's confident with what he's found so far, and that is the answer to the bulk of his questions, then why does that annoy you?
Doesn't the scripture say “Seek and ye shall find?”So anyway,what has that got to do with a two year old post, when the conversation was about something different?
You are obsessed with Wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
