Assyrian Forums
 Home  |  Ads  |  Partners  |  Sponsors  |  Contact  |  FAQs  |  About  
 
   Holocaust  |  History  |  Library  |  People  |  TV-Radio  |  Forums  |  Community  |  Directory
  
   General  |  Activism  |  Arts  |  Education  |  Family  |  Financial  |  Government  |  Health  |  History  |  News  |  Religion  |  Science  |  Sports
   Greetings · Shläma · Bärev Dzez · Säludos · Grüße · Shälom · Χαιρετισμοί · Приветствия · 问候 · Bonjour · 挨拶 · تبریکات  · Selamlar · अभिवादन · Groete · التّحيّات

Context is KEY!

Archived: Read only    Previous Topic Next Topic
Home Forums Peshitta Topic #842
Help Print Share

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

Context is KEY!

Jan-29-2002 at 10:16 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

Shlama all,

The raging debate over Luke 22-24 can be settled with an educated reading of the context which will show that only the Peshitta reading is valid:


  • Verse 21 - the circumcision occured after the required time passed for the infant since he was unclean for 7 days. Notice the plural context here - THEY named him "Eshoa". No exclusive mention of Maryam's ritual sacrifice yet.
  • Verse 22 - after "their" days of purification, THEY took him up to Jerusalem to present him at the temple. The "days of their purification" certainly references the infant and the mother - and possibly even the father if he delivered the baby. Again, plural context. Still no exclusive mention of Maryam's ritual sacrifice.
  • Verse 23 - a quote from the law which sets the scene for the first ceremony. Again, this is for the infant and no exclusive mention of Maryam's ceremony is made.
  • Verse 24 - finally, a mention is made strictly limited to Maryam's ritual ceremony.

Why, James, are you trying to limit the meaning of Verse 22 to only the requirements of Maryam's ceremony?

Both mother and infant (and most likely father) had "days of purification" - and Verse 22 is dealing with that.

In fact, Luke just finished speaking about the infant's required days of purification in Verse 21 !!!!!

The OS reading makes no sense given the context in Verse 21 !!!!!

YOU are reading ahead to Verse 24 and trying to find fault with Verse 22 - where none exists and where the Peshitta conveys the accurate reading.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

 
Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

2. RE: Context is KEY!

Jan-29-2002 at 11:45 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #0
 
>Shlama all,
>
>The raging debate over Luke 22-24
>can be settled with an
>educated reading of the context
>which will show that only
>the Peshitta reading is valid:
>
>
>


    >
  • Verse 21 - the circumcision
    >occured after the required time
    >passed for the infant since
    >he was unclean for 7
    >days. Notice the plural
    >context here - THEY named
    >him "Eshoa". No exclusive
    >mention of Maryam's ritual sacrifice
    >yet.
    >
  • Verse 22 - after "their"
    >days of purification, THEY took
    >him up to Jerusalem to
    >present him at the temple.
    > The "days of their
    >purification" certainly references the infant
    >and the mother - and
    >possibly even the father if
    >he delivered the baby.

    But it should not. You see "days of purification" does not simply mean "unclean" it refers to a special condition that the woman is in during the 33 days after her "days of sepeartion" and before her purification ritual.

    An unclean man is NOT in "days of purification"

    >Again, plural context. Still
    >no exclusive mention of Maryam's
    >ritual sacrifice.
    >

  • Verse 23 - a quote
    >from the law which sets
    >the scene for the first
    >ceremony. Again, this is
    >for the infant and no
    >exclusive mention of Maryam's ceremony
    >is made.

    Yes because this ritual does tot realte to the "days of her impurity" in fact it COULD have been done 10 days earlier but Miriam could not have been present.

    >

  • Verse 24 - finally, a
    >mention is made strictly limited
    >to Maryam's ritual ceremony.
    >

>

Which cannot occur until after the "days of her purification" (Lev. 12:4) which had to pass before Miriam could enter the Temple for either of these two rituals.

>Why, James, are you trying to
>limit the meaning of Verse
>22 to only the requirements
>of Maryam's ceremony?

Because that is what it MEANS.

>
>Both mother and infant (and most
>likely father) had "days of
>purification" - and Verse 22
>is dealing with that.

Again this term does not refer in the Torah to days in which a person is ritually impurte. It refers to a specuial conmdition which the Mother undergoes after her days of seperation are over and before her Templke ritual of purification may take place.

>

In fact, Luke just
>finished speaking about the infant's
>required days of purification in
>Verse 21 !!!!!


No. the phase "days of purification" does not appear in verse 21 and it should not. The days in chich a newborn are unclean are NOT called "days of purification" in the Torah.

Certain Torah regulations apply when someone is simply unclean. Certain others apply when a woman is in her "days of sepeartion" and yet others apply when she is in the "days of her purification.

A newborn is unclean during the first seven days but tehse are not "days of purification"

Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

3. RE: Context is KEY!

Jan-29-2002 at 12:21 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #2
 
>But it should not. You
>see "days of purification" does
>not simply mean "unclean" it
>refers to a special condition
>that the woman is in
>during the 33 days after
>her "days of sepeartion" and
>before her purification ritual.

Verse 22 says nothing about 33 days. It's purposely vague because it speaks of "their purification."

>
>An unclean man is NOT in
>"days of purification"
>

Sure he is. A leper certainly is (Lev. 14) and so is an infant during the first 7 or 14 days.

>
>Yes because this ritual does tot
>realte to the "days of
>her impurity" in fact it
>COULD have been done 10
>days earlier but Miriam could
>not have been present.
>

Right - all the more reason why Luke said "theirs" - he's trying to point out that they celebrated BOTH ceremonies because "their days of purification" had finished.

Luke is not giving Torah - he's giving history and you are limiting him to write as Moses wrote.

>
>Which cannot occur until after the
>"days of her purification" (Lev.
>12:4) which had to pass
>before Miriam could enter the
>Temple for either of these
>two rituals.
>

Right - so both of "their days" had completed - they could celebrate BOTH ceremonies with BOTH parents present.

>Again this term does not refer
>in the Torah to days
>in which a person is
>ritually impurte. It refers
>to a specuial conmdition which
>the Mother undergoes after her
>days of seperation are over
>and before her Templke ritual
>of purification may take place.

But Luke is not using it that way. Luke is telling us why on one, combined day BOTH ceremonies were taking place. BECAUSE they waited for Mary's purification to complete so that she could be present.

There's no restriction on presenting the firstborn at 40 days - the law stipulates 30 days OR AFTER.

Luke is simply telling us that "their days" of purification were over - BOTH of them, so that these two rituals were held on the SAME day.

And yes - there's nothing wrong with saying "their days of purification" - your suggestion that a male can't have "days of purification" is ridiculous.

Lepers have 7 "days of purification" as do males who have a seminal emission.

Your suggestion that we can't call these days "days of purification" is preposterous.

>No. the phase "days of
>purification" does not appear in
>verse 21 and it should
>not. The days in
>chich a newborn are unclean
>are NOT called "days of
>purification" in the Torah.

That doesn't mean that Luke can't call them "days of purification" if, indeed, they are days when the newborn is becoming "purified."

You're just playing on semantics.


>
>A newborn is unclean during the
>first seven days but tehse
>are not "days of purification"
>

Sure they are. Just like the 7 days of a leper or a man with a seminal discharge are "days of purification."

The fact that they have to wait for a period of time means that they are being given enough time to purify themselves - after which the man with a discharge, for instance, has to sit in the SAME Mikveh (purification bath) as a woman who was menstruating does.

This argument is very weak.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

4. James....

Jan-29-2002 at 12:36 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #3
 
You said:
>
>An unclean man is NOT in
>"days of purification"
>

Do you want to stand by this statement? :c

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

5. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 01:02 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #4
 
>You said:
>>
>>An unclean man is NOT in
>>"days of purification"
>>
>
>Do you want to stand by
>this statement? :c
>

Not just by virtue of being unclean in general. You can add OTHER factors that would involve "days of purification" for example if he has leperousy. But NOT by virtue of having come in contact with a birth or a woman in her "days of seperation". Which IS what we are talking about.

Now I guess if you want to speculate that they had all been struck with leperously and healed during the 40 days that THEN you MIGHT have a justification for "days of their purification"...

but then that is a ridiculous argument!

Trimm

>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

6. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 01:11 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #5
 
>Not just by virtue of being
>unclean in general. You
>can add OTHER factors that
>would involve "days of purification"
>for example if he has
>leperousy. But NOT by
>virtue of having come in
>contact with a birth or
>a woman in her "days
>of seperation". Which IS
>what we are talking about.

NO - that is NOT what we are talking about. I'm not letting you off that easy.

We are talking about a newborn male and also about a male who has a seminal discharge and also about a male who has leprosy.

I ask the question again - you said:
>>An unclean man is NOT in
>>"days of purification"

To define - an "unclean man" for our discussion means any of the following:


  • an uncircumcized 1-day old infant
  • a leper
  • a man with a seminal discharge

Are you willing to stand by that statement?

Are you sure that I can't find a rabbinical source that states that all three categories of males do, in fact, go through "days of purification" - contrary to your false claim that "days of purification" only applies to females?


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

7. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 01:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 
You just said it again, in another post right here: http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/forums/board.cgi?az=show_thread&om=836&forum=peshitta&omm=17

In that post, you said:
There is no such thing as "days of purification" for the baby. This term does not apply to a newborn. It also does not apply to a woman who is menatrating or a man who has become unclean.

Are you willing to stand by that opinion?


Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

8. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 01:49 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #6
 

>
>To define - an "unclean
>man" for our discussion means
>any of the following:
>
>


    >
  • an uncircumcized 1-day old infant
    >
    >
  • a leper
    >
  • a man with a seminal
    >discharge

    No to define an unclean man for purposes of OUR discussion an unclean man would be one who became unclean by contact with a woman or that which she ahd polluted during her "days of seperation".
    Or the state of a newborn male on its first seven days (by virtue of the above conatct). Such a male does NOT undergo "days of purification" according to the Torah and I would be verty interested in any authoritative Rabbinical Source
    that says otherwise.

    Trimm

Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

9. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 02:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #8
 
James, you said:

An unclean man is not said to be in "days of purification".

And then you implied that the generic term "days of purification" within Judaic context applies to females only.

I ask the question again - yes or no - Are you willing to stand by those statements?

Don't bring any other issues up.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top
James_Trimm
 
Send email to James_TrimmSend private message to James_TrimmAdd James_Trimm to your contact list
 
Member:
Member Feedback

10. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 07:34 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #9
 
I mplied no such thing. I simply stated that unclen man does NOT equal a man in "days of purification" and that in the situation we are discussing even if Joseph or the child had become unclean by contacting the woman duing the seven days after birth, that time of uncleanness would NOT be "days of purification".

>James, you said:
>
>An unclean man is not said
>to be in "days of
>purification".

>
>And then you implied that the
>generic term "days of purification"
>within Judaic context applies to
>females only.
>
>I ask the question again -
>yes or no - Are
>you willing to stand by
>those statements?
>
>Don't bring any other issues up.
>
>
>Fk^rwbw 0ml4
>
> Peshitta.org


Print Top

Paul Younanmoderator

 
Send email to Paul YounanSend private message to Paul YounanView profile of Paul YounanAdd Paul Younan to your contact list
 
Member: Jun-1-2000
Posts: 1,306
Member Feedback

11. RE: James....

Jan-29-2002 at 11:04 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria)

In reply to message #10
 
So, then, the phrase "days of purification" can be applied to males as well? (it's not just a term applied to females?)

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

Print Top

Forums Topics  Previous Topic Next Topic


Assyria \ã-'sir-é-ä\ n (1998)   1:  an ancient empire of Ashur   2:  a democratic state in Bet-Nahren, Assyria (northern Iraq, northwestern Iran, southeastern Turkey and eastern Syria.)   3:  a democratic state that fosters the social and political rights to all of its inhabitants irrespective of their religion, race, or gender   4:  a democratic state that believes in the freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture in faithfulness to the principles of the United Nations Charter — Atour synonym

Ethnicity, Religion, Language
» Israeli, Jewish, Hebrew
» Assyrian, Christian, Aramaic
» Saudi Arabian, Muslim, Arabic
Assyrian \ã-'sir-é-an\ adj or n (1998)   1:  descendants of the ancient empire of Ashur   2:  the Assyrians, although representing but one single nation as the direct heirs of the ancient Assyrian Empire, are now doctrinally divided, inter sese, into five principle ecclesiastically designated religious sects with their corresponding hierarchies and distinct church governments, namely, Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic.  These formal divisions had their origin in the 5th century of the Christian Era.  No one can coherently understand the Assyrians as a whole until he can distinguish that which is religion or church from that which is nation -- a matter which is particularly difficult for the people from the western world to understand; for in the East, by force of circumstances beyond their control, religion has been made, from time immemorial, virtually into a criterion of nationality.   3:  the Assyrians have been referred to as Aramaean, Aramaye, Ashuraya, Ashureen, Ashuri, Ashuroyo, Assyrio-Chaldean, Aturaya, Chaldean, Chaldo, ChaldoAssyrian, ChaldoAssyrio, Jacobite, Kaldany, Kaldu, Kasdu, Malabar, Maronite, Maronaya, Nestorian, Nestornaye, Oromoye, Suraya, Syriac, Syrian, Syriani, Suryoye, Suryoyo and Telkeffee. — Assyrianism verb

Aramaic \ar-é-'máik\ n (1998)   1:  a Semitic language which became the lingua franca of the Middle East during the ancient Assyrian empire.   2:  has been referred to as Neo-Aramaic, Neo-Syriac, Classical Syriac, Syriac, Suryoyo, Swadaya and Turoyo.

Please consider the environment when disposing of this material — read, reuse, recycle. ♻
AIM | Atour: The State of Assyria | Terms of Service