- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ok Mike, it is working on the laptop…I had to download it first though. Now for the quote:
Understanding why MarYah is the Aramaic Name for YHWH
Introduction
Throughout both volumes of this work, I have been repeatedly making the assertion that
the Peshitta Tanakh and New Testament usage of the phrase MarYah (ayrm) is neither a
title nor a conjugation of the word Mar (rm), meaning “master”. Instead, the word is a
carrying over of the set-apart Name, a.k.a. the “Tetragrammaton”; a compound word,
comprised of Mar and the simplified form of YHWH, Yah. In this form, MarYah
replaces YHWH almost 7,000 times in the Peshitta Tanakh alone. Furthermore, the
Peshitta New Testament carries over all Tanakh quotes with this word applying also to
YHWH, as well as using it in the narrative portions of the Gospels and elsewhere to
clearly designate YHWH.
Now, all this should be simple enough to those who have undertaken a sincere study of
Aramaic, but some have made it more difficult than it should have been on purpose. The
reason is simple. Many in the Nazarene Messianic community refuse to accept the divine
aspects of Messiah that are clearly contained in the Peshitta text. Unable to change what
the text says, they simply deny the meaning of the key word! The purpose of this part of
Path to Life however, is to just debunk all of their artifices in the strongest yet clearest
language that I can muster. That is why I have also put this portion directly after the
“Definitions of MarYah” section to provide the underpinnings and context to the
scholarly conclusions Oraham, Payne-Smith and Jennings have already reached.
Finally, please understand that for those who already understand and agree with this key
issue, there is no need for you to have to wade through this grammar-intensive section.
However, if you are someone who is unsure about this critical matter or you have spoken
with someone that has tried to confuse you about the truth and you don’t know where to
turn, let me tell you, you have come to the right place. I will begin with taking on each
argument and, one at a time, deconstruct them for the flawed theses that they truly are.From page 4 of this link:
http://ebookbrowse.com/underst….5667985You, Mike, need to look at the 'arguments' that are following this quote. I think that they address your concerns.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,14:59) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,13:54) The cell containing ALL the 'puzzle pieces' would be the parent and the offspring within it would be the offspring.
So then Jesus was also “divided” from God with the puzzle pieces for a THIRD God already inside him?Kathi, this is the wrong thread. Let's keep this about the Peshitta and not make it a general “Jesus is God” thread.
Mike,
No second time replication, Mike. The Bible only speaks of one Begotten God…an 'only' begotten God. The cells in the example have to continually go through mitosis because the old cells die off. This is not the case with the eternal Father who never 'dies off.'BTW, this Peshitta thread confirms the 'Jesus is God' threads. You can't take the 'Jesus is God' emphasis out of this thread since that is a main purpose for it. The Peshitta does also bring to light clearer understanding of the Greek translations and so this thread will also show more of that.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,00:35) So Mike show me the definition of EHEYEH in the four dictionaries you have been mentioning and also show me the interlinears that show Exodus 3:14 with EHEYEH as YHWH. When you can show me this, then you will be showing me in a way that you insist that I show you. 
Also, don't bother replying till you have also read this evidence for MarYah found here:
For your convenience, I will repeat my request:So Mike show me the definition of EHEYEH in the four dictionaries you have been mentioning and also show me the interlinears that show Exodus 3:14 with EHEYEH as YHWH. When you can show me this, then you will be showing me in a way that you insist that I show you.
Kathi,
I will repeat: Hebrew hwhy, plus yrml ayrm rma
In the Jerusalem Targum, the translation of Ex 3:14 most likely kept the Hebrew word “YHWH”, and transliterated it as “EHEYEH”.
I have not been able to find an Aramaic word for the divine name of God, and am not sure there even is one.
This is also the case in the Greek Septuagint. In the oldest fragments ever found, the Hebrew tetragammaton is inserted into the Greek text whenever the scripture being translated contained the divine name. The Greeks didn't transliterate their own divine name, but just inserted the original Hebrew name in the original Hebrew language whenever the name was in the scriptures.
And judging from the sound of the transliteration of the Jerusalem Targum, and from the information from the site you linked me to (Hebrew YHWH PLUS……….), I'd say this was also the case with the Syrians.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,14:24) You, Mike, need to look at the 'arguments' that are following this quote. I think that they address your concerns.
I did look at them, remember? If you find one that proves “marya” actually means “the Lord Jehovah”, let me know.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,14:32) The cells in the example have to continually go through mitosis because the old cells die off. This is not the case with the eternal Father who never 'dies off.'
So it appears that “mitosis” isn't really a good comparison after all, huh?Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,14:32) BTW, this Peshitta thread confirms the 'Jesus is God' threads. You can't take the 'Jesus is God' emphasis out of this thread since that is a main purpose for it.
Yes Kathi,It is clear to all of us that your only interest in the Peshitta is the hope that it will help you prove that Jesus is the very God he is the Son of. But I'm trying to say that this should not be just another thread for your “Jesus is God” arguments in general. If “mitosis” has a direct link to the Peshitta, then bring it up here. If not, then why discuss it in the Peshitta thread?
Mike,
you said:Quote It is clear to all of us that your only interest in the Peshitta is the hope that it will help you prove that Jesus is the very God he is the Son of. But I'm trying to say that this should not be just another thread for your “Jesus is God” arguments in general. If “mitosis” has a direct link to the Peshitta, then bring it up here. If not, then why discuss it in the Peshitta thread? Now you speak for “all of us” wow, when was the meeting that you ALL discussed this and voted you as the spokesperson?
Or do you just slant your speech to make it appear as if you are like God and can read everyone's mind on the matter?
The reason that I discussed Mitosis here is because you brought up something that did not at all relate to the Peshitta, that was a completely false understanding that you refuse to let go of even when shown your error–that whole idea that people that believe Jesus is the only begotten God are somehow saying that Jesus is also the begetter God that beget Him.
An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.
You have been shown over and over that what you claim is in error yet you continue in your error and therefore cease to be honest. Or maybe you are just honestly blind which may be because the God of the world has blinded your intellect so that you will come to Him by faith in response to His calling you and not by sight.Quote
So it appears that “mitosis” isn't really a good comparison after all, huh?Mitosis is a great comparison. Jesus used all sorts of earthly examples to help explain heavenly truths. None of them were exact comparisons because the heavenly truths are so far beyond our understanding, they can't be explained exactly with words.
Just look at this link and see, for instance, how many things the kingdom of heaven is compared to, yet none of them is an exact comparison. So if you can't accept the mitosis example, then you must have trouble with the kingdom of heaven being like a mustard seed, or like yeast. Are you going to argue with Jesus when you meet Him and tell Him how His examples are not exactly the same as a kingdom of heaven? I wouldn't be surprised. You remind me of Job's friends that God rebuked. They were trying so hard to reason with Job but in the end, they were wrong and needed Job's forgiveness.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,23:24) An honest but mistaken man, once shown the truth, either ceases to be mistaken or ceases to be honest.
It was YOU who once told me that Jesus was the Son of the Father and Son Unity Godhead, Kathi. (You later changed “of” to “in”, but that first statement was such a shock to me that it stuck. )I will try to remember in the future that you believe we have TWO Almighty Gods, and that Jesus is the Son of only one of them.
Anyway, did you have anything to say about my post that started with “I will repeat”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,22:31) Kathi, I will repeat: Hebrew hwhy, plus yrml ayrm rma
In the Jerusalem Targum, the translation of Ex 3:14 most likely kept the Hebrew word “YHWH”, and transliterated it as “EHEYEH”.
I have not been able to find an Aramaic word for the divine name of God, and am not sure there even is one.
This is also the case in the Greek Septuagint. In the oldest fragments ever found, the Hebrew tetragammaton is inserted into the Greek text whenever the scripture being translated contained the divine name. The Greeks didn't transliterate their own divine name, but just inserted the original Hebrew name in the original Hebrew language whenever the name was in the scriptures.
And judging from the sound of the transliteration of the Jerusalem Targum, and from the information from the site you linked me to (Hebrew YHWH PLUS……….), I'd say this was also the case with the Syrians.
I think that you can't find a word for the divine name because you are looking in a lexicon/dictionary that goes from Aramaic to English. I found out that Jehovah is not English but Latin.The MarYah is claiming that the Mar and Yah together is a compound word of the two, Mar and Yah. The Yah is the divine name part of the compound word. That is how YHWH is substituted everytime in the Aramaic text according to the info.
So what did YOUR source mean by “Hebrew YHWH PLUS marya”?
Kathi, “marya” simply means “lord” according to all the dictionaries and interlinears I've looked at. Doesn't it seem at all odd to you that everyone else seems to think it means “lord”, but you and a couple other “Jesus is Jehovah” proponents say otherwise?
You said, “That is how YHWH is substituted everytime in the Aramaic text according to the info.”
And YHWH is substituted everytime by LORD in many English translations. Now what if some English NT translation decided to use LORD anytime Jesus was referenced? Would it mean the English word “LORD” now MEANS “the Lord Jehovah”?
Mike,
Quote Now what if some English NT translation decided to use LORD anytime Jesus was referenced? Would it mean the English word “LORD” now MEANS “the Lord Jehovah”? Not if it were a translation, but if the English was the original language as well as the manuscripts, then when referring to the Son, it would mean YHWH or Lord Jehovah, or Jehovah, yes.
Mike,
you said:Quote I will try to remember in the future that you believe we have TWO Almighty Gods, and that Jesus is the Son of only one of them. The Father and the Son are equal in attributes and always united representing one almighty authority or almighty-ness. They are interdependently almighty as opposed to independently almighty.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2012,20:04) Mike,
you said:Quote I will try to remember in the future that you believe we have TWO Almighty Gods, and that Jesus is the Son of only one of them. The Father and the Son are equal in attributes and always united representing one almighty authority or almighty-ness. They are interdependently almighty as opposed to independently almighty.
you still blindfolded in this ,you make it like God almighty is depending on his SON ,
but to make it stick you have to make the son ,NOT a creation ,
because if you do not this would mean that God is not depending on the son sins he would be at one time alone ,
so you have to bring forth two lies to prove the one that you believe in ,all not in scriptures
Pierre,
As usual you are full of your own opinions without any proof that what I understand are lies and not in scriptures, tis ashame because you will be judged according to how you judge others.In the Peshitta as well as the Greek, all things were made THROUGH the Son.
Salvation comes THROUGH the Son.
God becomes All in All THROUGH the Son,
The seals of the scroll are removed THROUGH the Son, etc.
The Father is an eternal Father which can't happen apart from the Son, hence the Father was never alone.
And, Jesus can't do anything apart from the Father.Thus…interdependently almighty! Together they stand!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2012,08:44) Pierre,
As usual you are full of your own opinions without any proof that what I understand are lies and not in scriptures, tis ashame because you will be judged according to how you judge others.In the Peshitta as well as the Greek, all things were made THROUGH the Son.
Salvation comes THROUGH the Son.
God becomes All in All THROUGH the Son,
The seals of the scroll are removed THROUGH the Son, etc.
The Father is an eternal Father which can't happen apart from the Son, hence the Father was never alone.
And, Jesus can't do anything apart from the Father.Thus…interdependently almighty! Together they stand!
Kis a door the house
is the owner of the house the house
Mike,
you asked:Quote So what did YOUR source mean by “Hebrew YHWH PLUS marya”?
I don't know where you get my source writing this “Hebrew YHWH PLUS marya.” Did you mean to say this: “Hebrew hwhy, plus yrml ayrm rma?”This is what the source says:
II. As a term applying exclusively to YHWH and by extension Y'shua, who is also
called YHWH:
William Jennings Syriac Lexicon (Oxford University Press, 1926), p. 130-131ayrm (meem-resh-yodh-alap), the emphatic form used for the sacred
Hebrew hwhy, plus yrml ayrm rma (Amar MarYah l'mari) The LORD
said to my Lord, Matthew 22:44, also for Christ as Lord of all, Acts 10:36,
and the one Lord, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11.
Compendious Syriac by R. Payne Smith (Oxford University Press, 1902; Reprinted by
Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), p. 2983Mike, I believe what he is saying is that ayrm (meem-resh-yodh-alap) is the Aramaic word used when the Hebrew YHWH is meant and you can see that in the Aramaic interlinear in Matt 22:44…then you can see that ayrm (meem-resh-yodh-alap) is also used for Christ as Lord of all, Acts 10:36,
and the one Lord, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11.Mike,
I found this quote from what you put up:Quote Do you notice those words, “Hebrew hwhy, PLUS”? That tells me that the name YHWH was a strictly Hebrew word, and perhaps they didn't even have an Aramaic word for YHWH, but applied the Hebrew word to “marya” when they wanted to say “the Lord Jehovah”. This corresponds to some of the research I did yesterday: That reflects a lack of understanding for sure on your part of what the source actually says since you have left out much of the actual sentence. Intentional? I hope not. I put the entire quote in my above post and bolded the part you focused on and totally screwed up. No wonder you are not getting this.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2012,10:50) Pierre,
Is the eternal Father a Father apart from an eternal Son?
KI only see the almighty God ,and the first being he created he call him THE WORD OF GOD ,then later he ALSO CALLED HIM HIS SON ,I do not see a problem in this ,this is what scriptures are teaching.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
