Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-05-2002 at 07:22 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Akhay, 1 John 5:7 King James Version (KJV) 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. . How can 3 be 1? Compare PNT 0rr4 hyty0 0xwr Yhd 0dhsm 0xwrw And the Spirit witnesses that the Spirit itself is truth. (I probably destroyed this passage sorry.) 1 John 5:7 (RSV) And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. Hey its good to have KJV in the trinity camp. Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
- RE: New Math 3 Equals 1,
jdrywood, Mar-07-2002 at 05:41 PM, (1)
- RE: New Math 3 Equals 1,
jdrywood, Mar-07-2002 at 07:33 PM, (2)
- RE: New Math 3 Equals 1,
Iakov, Mar-07-2002 at 09:39 PM, (3)
- RE: New Math 3 Equals 1,
Iakov, Mar-07-2002 at 11:09 PM, (4)
- RE: New Math 3 Equals 1,
jdrywood, Mar-08-2002 at 04:20 AM, (5)
- Wrong Again,
Iakov, Mar-08-2002 at 09:08 AM, (6)
- RE: Turning a Wrong into right,
jdrywood, Mar-09-2002 at 03:59 AM, (7)
- RE: Turning a Wrong into right,
jdrywood, Mar-09-2002 at 05:21 AM, (8)
- Your Confusion,
Iakov, Mar-09-2002 at 09:33 AM, (9)
- RE: seeking converts,
jdrywood, Mar-11-2002 at 05:57 AM, (10)
- Aramaic is the Key,
Iakov, Mar-11-2002 at 05:28 PM, (11)
- RE: Aramaic is the Key,
jdrywood, Mar-11-2002 at 10:33 PM, (12)
- RE: Aramaic is the Key,
Paul Younan
, Mar-11-2002 at 11:32 PM, (13)
- RE: Aramaic is the Key,
Iakov, Mar-12-2002 at 00:32 AM, (14)
- RE: Aramaic is the Key,
jdrywood, Mar-12-2002 at 05:32 AM, (15)
- RE: Aramaic is the Key,
Iakov, Mar-12-2002 at 08:31 AM, (16)
- RE: New Math 3 Equals 1,
LAZAR, Mar-15-2002 at 05:53 PM, (17)
- RE: New Math 1x1x1 = 1000's,
jdrywood, Mar-17-2002 at 05:22 AM, (18)
- Sorry, Wrong Again.,
Iakov, Mar-17-2002 at 08:59 PM, (19)
- RE: deviling Iakov.,
jdrywood, Mar-18-2002 at 05:27 PM, (20)
- Boring,
Iakov, Mar-18-2002 at 10:13 PM, (22)
- RE: Sorry, Wrong Again.,
Paul Younan
, Mar-18-2002 at 09:38 PM, (21)
- RE: Wrong Again.,
jdrywood, Mar-18-2002 at 01:10 AM, (23)
- RE: Wrong Again.,
Paul Younan
, Mar-19-2002 at 01:33 AM, (24)
- RE: small wonders,
jdrywood, Mar-19-2002 at 05:28 PM, (25)
- RE: small wonders,
Paul Younan
, Mar-19-2002 at 05:49 PM, (26)
- RE: there is a difference,
jdrywood, Mar-19-2002 at 08:59 PM, (27)
- RE: there is a difference,
Paul Younan
, Mar-19-2002 at 09:17 PM, (29)
- RE: there is a difference,
BarKhela, Mar-20-2002 at 04:46 AM, (31)
- RE: there is a difference,
Andrew Gabriel Roth, Mar-20-2002 at 05:45 AM, (32)
- RE: small wonders,
Iakov, Mar-19-2002 at 09:17 PM, (28)
- RE: small wonders,
Paul Younan
, Mar-19-2002 at 09:50 PM, (30)
- RE: small potatoes,
jdrywood, Mar-20-2002 at 10:34 PM, (33)
- RE: small potatoes,
Paul Younan
, Mar-20-2002 at 10:39 PM, (34)
- RE: splitting potatoes,
jdrywood, Mar-21-2002 at 02:01 AM, (35)
- RE: splitting potatoes,
Paul Younan
, Mar-21-2002 at 02:12 AM, (36)
- RE: potatoe lovers,
jdrywood, Mar-21-2002 at 08:29 PM, (37)
- McNugget Lovers,
Paul Younan
, Mar-21-2002 at 09:54 PM, (38)
- RE: Revising Potato charts,
jdrywood, Mar-21-2002 at 11:30 PM, (39)
- RE: Revising Potato charts,
Paul Younan
, Mar-21-2002 at 11:59 PM, (40)
- RE: Revising Peshitta,
jdrywood, Mar-22-2002 at 01:25 AM, (41)
- RE: Revising Peshitta,
Paul Younan
, Mar-22-2002 at 01:56 AM, (42)
- RE: Revising Peshitta,
Iakov, Mar-25-2002 at 08:35 AM, (44)
- RE: Revising Peshitta,
Paul Younan
, Mar-25-2002 at 06:14 PM, (45)
- RE: Revising Peshitta,
Iakov, Mar-25-2002 at 08:58 PM, (46)
- RE: potatoe lovers,
Iakov, Mar-25-2002 at 08:35 AM, (43)
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-07-2002 at 05:41 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
akhi Iakov, oh! Oh! Ya! The One John wrote a Trinity of sorts in the PNT: a gospel, an epistle, the apocalpse too. WoW!! sleep soundly on this, ahkay.
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-07-2002 at 07:33 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Ahki Iakov, The Johannine Comma as critics call it was added to Eramus' 3rd edition in 1522 on the pretence that one ms could be found in Greek to support it. Well, the story goes that some smart friars quickly produced a manuscript ms #61 from the Latin versions of the Vulgate and handed it to Erasmus. Apparently three other Greek ms have surfaced: a 11th C. marginal note, ms #88 12th C. and ms #629 15th C. These caused Stephanus, Beza and Elzevir to include it in the Textus Receptus. Only some Latin Fathers cite it: Tertullian (died 220C.) Cyprian of Carthage (died 258C.) and Priiscillian (executed 385C.). The Council of Carthage 484 C. included it in Eugenius statement of Faith. And most early Latin copies include it though Jeromes Vulgate (405C.) did not. Therefore, early testimony does exist as early as the Sabellius controversy. As a non-trinitarian I support it because truly the Father, the Word of God, and His Spirit attest to the unity of purpose that all shall come to the knowledge of the Truth. To us there is but one God, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we (through the word) by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. 1 Cor 8:6 Peshitta & KING JAMES agree. How sweet it is. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-07-2002 at 09:39 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Yukhanan, As a >non-trinitarian I support it because >truly the Father, the Word >of God, and His Spirit >attest to the unity of >purpose that all shall come >to the knowledge of the >Truth.
"THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US" Unity of purpose? To us there is >but one God, the father, >of whom are all things, >and we in him; and >one Lord Jesus Christ, by >whom are all things, and >we (through the word) by >him. Howbeit there is not >in every man that knowledge. >1 Cor 8:6 Peshitta & >KING JAMES agree. >How sweet it is. Interesting. The Peshitta is correct when it agrees with your theology. bwq9y
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-07-2002 at 11:09 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Yukhanan, >To us there is >but one God, the father, >of whom are all things, >and we in him; and >one Lord Jesus Christ, by >whom are all things, and >we (through the word) by >him. Howbeit there is not >in every man that knowledge. >1 Cor 8:6 Peshitta & >KING JAMES agree. Nnxw hnm Lkd 0b0 0hl0 wh dx Nlyd Nl f0 hdy0b Nnx P0w hdy0b Lkd 0xy4m (w4y 0yrm dxw hb But for us there is one who is our God, the Father, from whom everything exists, and we are in Him, and one Lord-Yah Y'shua M'shikha in whose hand everything (has come to be), even we are in his hand. You do realize of course 'Lord' here is 'Mar-Yah'. BTW, I thought God created all things??? How can two take credit for ALL things? bwq9y
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-08-2002 at 04:20 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Ahki Iakov, You say: How can two take credit for all things? I say: How can One + One = One? Is this NEW MATT because where I come from the answer is TWO. Nevertheless, there is something I would like you to check into about the Greek dia here which has more than one meaning elsewhere: First through the centre of something dia-meter. Yes! Ie: Luke 6:1 he went through the corn fields Secondly, because of with accusative ie Mat 13:21 persecution arises because of the word Thirdly, for the sake of with genitive ie. Romans 15:30 for the sake of the Lord Jesus ChristNow English speech forbids the use of dia through as a substitute for by ie. 2Cor 1:16 to pass by you into Macedonia Vice-versa, English speech forbids dia by as a substitute for through ie. 1 Cor 13:12 for now we see through a glass, darkly So it appears the revisers took advantage of this flaw when translating dia in Colossians 1:16 not that they were confused but because they wanted to enforce on the little guys their NEW MATT. Dia here takes the genitive case and is properly understood because of or for the sake of KING JANES says: all things were created BY (because of) him and for him Revised editions since 1881 say: all things THROUGH him, and for him, have been created The Peshitta seems to agree with the KING JAMES: all things were in his hand and were created BY him In short, due to the word of deity were all things created all things were created for the sake of Jesus and account of him to secure our salvation. It would be interesting to know what the Peshittas equivalent to dia is in this case. I think ahki Paul might have another qnoma up his sleeve that he hasnt told us about. Cheers . jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-08-2002 at 09:08 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #5
Shlama Yukhanan, > You say: How >can two take credit for >all things? > I say: How >can One + One = >One? Of course there is 1x1x1. But your silence answers my question. >So it appears the revisers took >advantage of this flaw when >translating dia in Colossians 1:16 >not that they were confused >but because they wanted to >enforce on the little guys >their NEW MATT. Dia here >takes the genitive case and >is properly understood because of >or for the sake of > >KING JANES says: >> all things were >created BY (because of) him >and for him >Revised editions since 1881 say: > all things THROUGH >him, and for him, have >been created > >The Peshitta seems to agree with >the KING JAMES: all things >were in his hand and >were created BY him
> In short, >due to the word of >deity were all things created > all things were created >for the sake of Jesus >and account of him to >secure our salvation. Are you serious? hdy0b does not mean 'on account of' and 'for the sake of'. As in Dr Kiraz's Lexicon: Word: hdy0b Lexeme: 0dy0 Root: dy Word Number: 576 Meaning: through In fact thanks you've unveiled the weakness of the KJV again. Keep it coming. >It would be interesting to know >what the Peshittas equivalent to >dia is in this case. hdy0b
That is ridiculous twisting on 'dia's use of geniitive. Even first semester Greek students know 'dia' with genitive is translated 'through' and 'on account of' with the accusative.
Peshitta supports such a translation. bwq9y 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-09-2002 at 03:59 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
ahki Iakov, When we examine 1 Cor 13:12 in comparing the Peshitta to the GNT, we find dia is a poor substitute for in. One might think a Syrian chose the wrong word in his Greek translation. GNT For now we see through a glass in an enigma Peshitta For now you see in that looking-glass by comparing these things Nydyh F0lpb Nnyzx Fyzxmbd Ky0 04h jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-09-2002 at 05:21 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #7
ahki Iakov, Sorry about that mix up Iakov when I reviewed the post I realised you might have some trouble deciphering it, Im laughing so hard here I can barely type the proper font tag. Now, when we examine 1 Cor 13:12 in comparing the Peshitta to the GNT, we find dia is a poor substitute for in. One might think a Syrian chose the wrong word in his Greek translation. GNT For now we see through a glass in an enigma Peshitta For now you see in that looking-glass by comparing these things Nydyh F0lpb Nnyzx Fyzxmbd Ky0 04h jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-09-2002 at 09:33 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #7
Shlama Yukhanan, There was an incorrect font face in front of your text. Here it is. Press the preview button before posting message ansd that will help you. >ahki Iakov, > >When we examine 1 Cor 13:12 >in comparing the Peshitta to >the GNT, we find dia >is a poor substitute for >in. One might think >a Syrian chose the wrong >word in his Greek translation. > >GNT For >now we see through a >glass in an enigma >Peshitta For now you see in >that looking-glass by comparing these >things Nydyh F0lpb Nnyzx Fyzxmbd Ky0 04h I see your confusion and I think only akhan Paul can explain clearly the Aramaic equivalent of "through" when it doesn't refer to the agent (e.g.'By the hand of'). Corinthian mirrors were brightly polished metal. We look 'into' a mirror much like the Aramaic - b. However the GNT version must take 'dia' (here abreviated "di' ") with the genitive as the Greeks understood that they saw 'through' not into the mirror.(See Dr. Gordon Fee NICNT Commentary p. 647 note 41) The text would simply read 'eis esoptrw en ainigma',("into a mirror in a figurative way") if Greek wanted to express 'in' or 'into'. bwq9Y 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-11-2002 at 05:57 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #9
Ahki Iakov, checking out some prepositions apparently Aramaic assigns some as prefixes particularly when it comes to titles: Yrml 0yrm (the LORD to my lord sit at my right hand). Now thats easy Deity to my Jesus. Also I noticed that the Peshitta NT and KING JAMES agree in Act 2:7 and they were amazed Jwhlk all of them and wondered saying dxl dx one to another. Now the corrupt Vatican B and the GNT which follows it 90% of the time omits these words yet my KING JAMES which follows the Byzantine Texts used by Erasmus ms 2ap (12C.) & 4ap (15C.) includes them. That must mean that the 12th century ORPHANS are as early as the Peshitta NT. New recruits for KING JAMES always welcome. w0 w0 jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-11-2002 at 05:28 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #10
Shlama Yukhanan, You're seeking KJV converts on an Aramaic forum??? In any event the weakness of KJV has already been demonstrated time and again. However I am thankful for KJV as it did its job, in its time. Akh Paul has already demonstrated several occurences of 0yrm refering to Jesus. In fact thanks for bringing that up as you now acknowledge that the term does refer to deity. Check out the GNT on Hebrew 6:3 and compare Peshitta. KJV reads the same as NASB on this. Peshitta reads 0yrm Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-11-2002 at 10:33 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #11
O Excellant Iakov, You may be onto something here ahki but dont tell ahki Paul.. I like you have detected some elevation in the Peshitta that expands the titles of Jesus. Hebrew 6:3 from theos to marya and Acts 1:1 from Iesous to meshihka Eshoa maran are examples of elevation of the Byzantine text. Yet also the Alexandrian texts have not been tampered with here. There has to be a lot more examples like these. Marcion in Asia and Valentinus in Africa (150C) were Gnostics who dropped many titles Jesus and Christ and Lord but the easterners tendency was to elevate the titles applied to Jesus. The middle ground is the Byzantine text. Notice Tatian had a tendency to add titles ie Luke 4:41 Christos or Ar. Meshihka agreeing with Peshitta and Byzantine KING JAMES yet ignored in Vatican B and GNT. Also, Tatian in Acts 23:42 adds my Lord Ar. maryi both Peshitta and Byzantine KING JAMES agree but not Vatican B or GNT. Therefore, Tatian may have been responsible for elevating the Peshitta to counter the Gnostic school at Alexandrian who were conflating the titles. The controversy was raging as to who Jesus was in the 2nd century; GOD or MAN. The Byzantine text may represent a neutral stand against these to opposite camps; Orthodoxy and Gnostic which led to further division. My studies of the Peshitta these pass few weeks have verified what I had suspected though I havent yet determined the evangelcal seat of each. Peshitta is probably a composite Byzantine text out of Antioch. John at Patmos and Polycarp held the Byzantine-Syrian autographs at Ephesus/Smryna until 155C. Alexandria had no autographs that we know of not even via tradition. The Byzantine-Syrian text was copied in Latin around 120C. than Gaulic by the Assyrian Ireneas. By comparing the early latin, Greek Byzantine and Aramaic Peshitta there should be common grounds for originality among these. All the Payprii are too variant and anyone holding to Vaticanus B or Sinaticus aleph need to be retrained. If you find any more text changes like Hebrews 6:3 send them on the posts. We are going to wrestle this tiger down or be eaten in the process. And let all of us be mindful of the Psalmist words: Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-11-2002 at 11:32 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Hey guys, I was talking with some members of a skinhead group the other day about the Declaration of Independence. They didn't like the "All men are created equal" part. They felt it must have been tampered with.  Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-12-2002 at 00:32 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Shlama Yukhanan, > You may be >onto something here ahki but >dont tell ahki Paul.. I >like you have detected some >elevation in the Peshitta that >expands the titles of Jesus. >Hebrew 6:3 from theos to >marya
Yes. Another way of saying the same thing, exept in Peshitta it is more personal. and Acts 1:1 >from Iesous to meshihka Eshoa >maran are examples of elevation of the Byzantine text. From Jesus to Jesus Messiah our Lord??? How is that elevated? Jesus is a name not a title. He is called Lord (Kurios) and Christ (Xristos) in the Byz. as well.
>There has to be a >lot more examples like these. >Marcion in Asia and Valentinus >in Africa (150C) were Gnostics >who dropped many titles Jesus >and Christ and Lord but >the easterners tendency was to >elevate the titles applied to >Jesus. The middle ground is >the Byzantine text. And middle ground between the mountains and the sea is desert, much like that of Byz. Byz. editing has been demonstrated as also KJV has shown itself schizophrenic from one family of texts to the other. Peshitta has been right on with early p mss as Paul earlier noted the complete hoax of the woman caught in adultery is noted as missing from the earliest most reliable mss. Yes the Byz. text corrupted the NT by their ficticious editing. Therefore, Tatian may >have been responsible for elevating >the Peshitta
We can ask akh Paul but my understanding is that Peshitta has very very few variances. What does Tatian have to do directly with the Peshitta?
to counter the >Gnostic school at Alexandrian who >were conflating the titles. Really. The papyri who call him Lord, Messiah, Christ, The Word. Looks like they have their share of titles. My studies of the Peshitta these pass few weeks have verified what I had suspected though I havent yet determined the evangelcal seat of each. Yes many people stay as they were before they arrived, few receive, as many are called... John at Patmos and >Polycarp held
What???? Polycarp association with John makes his statements the same as the apostle's??? the Byzantine-Syrian autographs >at Ephesus/Smryna until 155C.
Yea right like there are Byz texts from then, hence again showing true colors.
>Alexandria had no autographs that >we know of not even >via tradition. The Byzantine-Syrian text >was copied in Latin around >120C. than Gaulic by the >Assyrian Ireneas. By comparing the >early latin, Greek Byzantine and >Aramaic Peshitta there should be >common grounds for originality among >these.
You say that like its matter of fact when in reality your suppositions have no proof. Fortunately the p texts are theearliest mss in existence bar none. This is a fact without trying to reconstruct the past. All the Payprii are >too variant
Yet they agree more w Pehitta than Byz. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-12-2002 at 05:32 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #14
O Excellent Ahkan Acts three WOW! Keep it coming. Now, you say, Jesus is a name not a title. Thats so true ahkay you must have read Luke 1:31 shall call his name Jesus. But did you notice the confusion of MarYah = deity when applied to an angel of verse 11 who appeared before Zacharias yet is called malacha in verse 13. Then we learn this angel had a name in verse 19 and was sent to speak glad tidings that is as an ambassador for deity. In fact, this is rehearsed in verse 26: the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth. Oh! Oh! Sent from alaha then to top this off the two deities are co-joined in verse32: the Mar-Yah alaha (Lord God) shall give unto him (Jesus) the throne of his father David. Whats this non-sense about possessing Davids throne and reigning over the Jews for ever and a never ending kingdom. This has never happened! Besides, you guys slice deity up like a potato and place Davids kingdom in the sky. Then you argue that this baby is very deity called Mar-Yah in Luke 2:11 as if deity could be born. Do you realise how ridicules this sounds, how very pagan? Now if you take all these appellatives and apply the same to singular entities, theres no confusion. Deity called Mar-Yah, alaha or Mar-Yah alaha sends representatives to speak on his behave and causes a miracle or two to produce a unique individual with his own qnoma and personality that makes him special and calls this baby Jesus who is to redeem the kingdom of David and be Israels king in the future on this earth than maybe we have arrived at the true meaning of his new name the Mar-Yah Jesus Mshikha, bonifide Saviour of mankind. Now how does this name differ from the almighty? Well thats easy. Only Deity is called YHWH and his beloved creation is called Mar-Yah Jesus Mshikha. The identity of Jesus is not lost. I see two separate identities and every son of God also will have separate identities and a new name given them. Maybe yours will be marah Iakov or marah Paul or something unique like Iakovel or Paulel. Arent we getting a little blasphemous in calling Jesus GOD? After all mar Paul says: this man is the power of Alalah Ac 8:10 and do I have to remind you that in his exalted state at this very moment at Gods right hand and as our mediator he is called human ] 04nrb 1Timothy 2:5: the MAN Christ Jesus. This same MAN is going to return with marks in his side and hands, in his very qnoma and personality.
jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-12-2002 at 08:31 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #15
Shlama Yukhanan, >But did you notice the >confusion of MarYah = >deity when applied to an >angel of verse 11 who >appeared before Zacharias yet is >called malacha in verse 13. 0msbd 0xbdmd 0nymy Nm M0qd 0yrmd 0k0lm 0yrkzl hl Yzxt0w
No the angel is not called 'malaka' the Aramaic term for angel is 'malaka' (malak in Heb.). 'Mlaka d'Mar'Ya'-Angel of the Lord. As Paul, Dean, and Andrew indicated one must take some time and learn the language before jumping into half baked judgements. Come on in Yukhanan the water is fine. >Then we learn this angel >had a name in verse >19 and was sent to >speak glad tidings that is >as an ambassador for deity. >In fact, this is rehearsed >in verse 26: the angel >Gabriel was sent from God >unto a city of Galilee, >named Nazareth. Oh! Oh! Sent >from alaha
Yes. It is good when they are sent from God and not some other source. then to top >this off the two deities
Shma Yisrael YHWH Elohenu YHWH ekhad. >are co-joined in verse32: the >Mar-Yah alaha (Lord God) shall >give unto him (Jesus) the >throne of his father David. >Whats this non-sense about possessing >Davids throne and reigning over >the Jews for ever and >a never ending kingdom. This >has never happened! Sure he did. Did he not conquer the Roman empire? He did. Did they not bow the knee and call him Lord? They did. The prophecy stated that Shiloh must come before the sceptor departed from Judah and so it did as the sceptor departed in the first century-into the hand of Messiah. Besides, you >guys slice deity up like >a potato Shma Yisrael YHWH Elohenu YHWH ekhad. and place Davids >kingdom in the sky. Then >you argue that this baby >is very deity called Mar-Yah > in Luke 2:11 as >if deity could be born. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. >Do you realise how ridicules >this sounds, how very pagan? >Now if you take all >these appellatives and apply the >same to singular entities, theres >no confusion. Deity called Mar-Yah, >alaha or Mar-Yah alaha sends >representatives to speak on his >behave and causes a miracle >or two to produce a >unique individual with his own >qnoma and personality I can see you have not paid attention to Paul's posts on Qnoma. I know you don't care aboput the facts since your mind is made up however Paul has gone to great lengths to explain the original meaning of an ancient term. Since your mind is made the wealth of this language will elude you. that makes >him special and calls this >baby Jesus who is to >redeem the kingdom of David >and be Israels king in >the future on this earth >than maybe we have arrived >at the true meaning of >his new name the Mar-Yah >Jesus Mshikha, bonifide Saviour of >mankind. Now how does this >name differ from the almighty? > Well thats easy. Only >Deity is called YHWH and >his beloved creation is called >Mar-Yah Jesus Mshikha.
You came to this conclusion after a month of becoming acquainted with Peshitta? Your blinders keep you from understanding a simple thing such as this. Mar-Ya has been attributed to YHWH and Y'shua. The identity >of Jesus is not lost. > I see two separate >identities and every son of >God also will have separate >identities and a new name >given them. Maybe yours will >be marah Iakov or marah >Paul or something unique like >Iakovel or Paulel. Arent we >getting a little blasphemous in >calling Jesus GOD? After all >mar Paul says: this man >is the power of Alalah >Ac 8:10 and do I >have to remind you that >in his exalted state at >this very moment at Gods >right hand and as our >mediator he is called human
Isaiah 9:6 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB) For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-17-2002 at 05:22 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #17
Mister Lazar, Multiplication in scripture is always a plurality never a three some John 17 tell you that we our part of the oneness of deity and Rev 7 tells you that number is in the thousands. So trinity does not occur in scripture only in man's thinking which is poluted. The first time trinity is even spoken of is by trhe Latin father tertullian about 170C. It did not become a issue of Christology until the Nicean council. So I might venture to say that anyone who believes in a triune Godhead might be defined as Assyrian "Cult worship" since it can be traced back to Zorasteriam and India. how's that for starters. }> jdrywood
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-17-2002 at 08:59 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #18
Mar Drywood, Multiplication in scripture is always a plurality never a three some Of course common sense dictates Lazar was referring to simple math. However, I am not aware of any trinitarian understanding of God being a 'three some'. As akhi Paul said, three 'perceptions',one kyana. So the multiplication example by Laza is appropriate. I suppose it is addition in the scriptures that offer a new twist. John 10:30 KJV I and my Father are one. John 17 tell you that we our part of the oneness of deity and Rev 7 tells you that number is in the thousands. Oh I see now you're a member of that cult Mormonism.I of course am referring to their goal to be on equality with divinity over their own kosmos. So trinity does not occur in scripture only in man's thinking which is poluted. The first time trinity is even spoken of is by trhe Latin father tertullian about 170C. It did not become a issue of Christology until the Nicean council. Yawn. Same ole same ole. Please come up with an original argument that carries some veracity. John 20:28 KJV And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. I didn't notice before but even KJV has LORD rather than Lord. Reference to YHWH.Mar-Yah. So I might venture to say that anyone who believes in a triune Godhead might be defined as Assyrian "Cult worship" since it can be traced back to Zorasteriam and India. how's that for starters.
When you are tired of being wrong we'll be here. BTW, I noticed you avoided the previous KJV examples I offered in other parts of this thread. As akhi Paul has said your silence is proof of the foundation on which you stand. Try this on for size also. I will use your KJV as it must be inspired. Matthew 1:18 KJV Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Having never been with a man who planted this seed? Ah, now we have third part of the triune God. Is the Holy Spirit anything less than God? I look forward to your answer. Matthew 28:19 KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Why not is the names of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost? Or why not 'b'shem Aba, w'b'shem Bara, w'b'shem Rukha d'Qudsha? Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-18-2002 at 05:27 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #19
Ahki Iakov wlazar, Nice and cosy over here in the KING JAMES CAMP but do bring your correct copy not an American one and you may fine that John 20:28 reads properly My Lord same as mari Yrm The context of my God is founded on OT linguistics similar to John 10:34 where Jesus was referring to Israels judges as gods = theos that is they had the authority of life and death over their brethren as though they were very deity. Notice how they acted Deu 1:27 for the judgement is Gods. And Psalms 82 where the verse is cited from has deity = elohim standing in the congregation of the mighty = Ail. He judges among the gods = elohim. Now we know that the Jews had a problem with elohim = deity because elohim is sometimes applied to foreign gods in the phrase God of gods but here God is plural denoting his representatives or angels which stand in the congregation. Heck! that sounds much like Hebrew 1:14 are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? And who is the mighty in the palm? None other but the leaders of the assembly. Confusing ah! Well let me confuse you some more so I can make a good KING JAMES follower out of you guys. In the Semite Mesopotamian world you will agree with me that even the heathen knew deity as AIL. Just to refresh your memory Palms 81:9 there shall no strange Ail = god be in you; neither shall you worship any strange god = Ail. Now I might have to help you with the elohim seeing that Assyrians have short memories that in Palsms 8:5 angels =elohim. Now putting this together for your understanding if angels can be called elohim and leaders/rulers can be called elohim, all these supposed mighty ones are only acting on deities power not their own. Likewise, Jesus always gave his Father the credit for all that he did under the influence of the spirit of holiness and to some extent without limit. So yes, doubting Mar Thomas your mentor in the east saw Jesus as a great mighty one among them. And when Jesus returns to this earth he will come with great authority to judge mankind as deities representative. Now John 10:30 would be better understood as I and my Father are of one accord. And we all know he said, my Father is greater than I. But, more important is the concept of John 14:23 we will come and make our abode with him. Abode is the same word as mansion so that our house becomes deities house, our temple his temple in a spiritual sense. Thus each individual qnoma and perspective becomes one accord with deitys purpose and mind. Together we become the multitudinous saints or spiritual household of Israel on earth. Now that I have blown you guys away with these ancient views perhaps a toast is in order. Anyone up for a cup of tea? Oh! Oh! Before I forget. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God , His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). https://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#TopOfPage And please refrain from calling me something or other, you have no idea of who or what a christadelphians is, probably more complicated than qnoma and kyanas. And ahki Iakov whos the bigger liar P-75 or P-46? }> jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-18-2002 at 10:13 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #20
Mar Drywood, >here in the KING JAMES >CAMP but do bring your >correct copy not an American >one Textus Receptus is not American. This is too funny. >that John 20:28 reads properly >My Lord same as mari > >Yrm >size="2" color="#808080"] The context of >my God is founded on >OT linguistics
"Theos mou" Does not refer to judges here or in John 10.
Yhl0w in Peshitta'kritai' as in Lk 11:19 actually means judges.
similar to John >10:34 where Jesus was referring >to Israels judges as gods >= theos that is they >had the authority of life >and death over their brethren >as though they were very >deity.
30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
The context says your WRONG AGAIN!!!!!! >God of gods but here >God is plural Ha. You are too funny. They were enraged before he referred to them as gods in the plural, because of his 'blasphemy', equating himself with God. This is not hard stuff. >Confusing ah! On the contrary this is SOOOO simple. Now putting >this together for your understanding >if angels can be called >elohim and leaders/rulers can be >called elohim, all these supposed >mighty ones are only acting >on deities power not their >own. Likewise, Jesus always gave >his Father the credit for >all that he did under >the influence of the spirit >of holiness and to some >extent without limit. So yes, >doubting Mar Thomas your mentor >in the east saw Jesus >as a great mighty one >among them. And when >Jesus returns to this earth >he will come with great >authority to judge mankind as >deities representative. And Peter Pan will come and take us away to Neverland. Now >that I have blown you >guys away That's for sure. You are all by yourself. >And please refrain from calling me >something or other, you have >no idea of who or >what a christadelphians is, probably >more complicated Yes, and it is a good thing God is simnple >And ahki Iakov whos the bigger >liar P-75 or P-46?
Perhaps you could put your rebuttals in a clear concise format? Explain the p-75 p46 and I will help you as much as I am able with the help of Dr Fee of course. BTW. You again danced around previous questions and comments. Here's another to add to the lengthening list. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you Aba SENDS Rukha Qudsha in Meshikha's name? And his role sounds much like Spirit of God in Tanakh. Yes we are beginning to look at the third part of the Trinity now. Shma Yisrael Adonai Eloheynu Adonai Ekhad. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-18-2002 at 01:10 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #21
to all  Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? Well, ahki Iakov! We are the sons of God, does that make us equal, three times No. And for four, No way is Jesus equal to God anywhere. The expression son of God does not imply divinity anymore than it does to us but it does imply spirituality as it applies to us. This thing about incarnation is I think a Babylonian- Assyrian plot against all, oh what did ahki Paul call me, 04nrb jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2002 at 05:28 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #24
To all who can still stand the Canadian cold and Assyrian heat, YES 0mwnq a word that can not be translated in any language, so why bother any body with mysterious words that can not be understood. Sounds like speaking in unknown tongues and if that is the case it probably was never used in the first place by the apostles but was added by Assyrians into the text so that they could understand hupostaseus (substance). And when he asked his disciples in Luke 9:18 Who do the crowds say that I AM? One of the prophets, but when he asked his disciples, Who do you say that I AM? Peter answered, 0hl0d hyky4m not alaha. So, the messiah of God has not the same force as very God though God is certainly called redeemer. Now we come to the real problem facing us in verse 26 as to who this man really is. All the known Papyri read the same as the Byzantine here and Iakov can check this out for us in P-4,-45,-75. Even Jeromes Latin agrees with the Greek. So set your eyes on this gdee katanim sheli. when he comes in the glory of himself, and of the Father, and of the holy messengers (angels) This trinity of glory disappears in the Peshitta and Tatians harmony which reads, when he comes in the glory of his Father with his holy angels. Now, there are no qnomas, kyanas or parsopas to translate here so a one for one literal translation into other languages should not have been a problem yet there is at this verse. Why? Were the translators bias in their opinions? Lukes gospel is dated to 56 C rather early dont you think and probably though not for certain in Greek at Phillippi. The difference is too pronounced to dismiss which means the text was not then standardized. So what standard should we set for the ages: Peshitta or Byzantine? But, not so fast, the identical verse is found at Matthew 16:27 dated some 16 years prior to Luke and not only this but we know that Matthew wrote in his native Aramaic which was then translated into Greek and Latin. And look at this, Iakov, we dont need you after all, the KING JAMES Cambridge Edition and Byzantine text translates it perfectly as in the Peshitta. Wonders of wonders, miracles of miracles, God has made this happen just for you. Now we really have a problem, the Aramaic could be translated one for one after all, so why the change in Luke? He must have had an apographa and how did that Syrian Tatian get it right when all his enemies got it wrong? jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2002 at 05:49 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #25
Last edited by Paul Younan on Mar-19-2002 at 06:55 PM (GMT3) Shlama Akhi John, Those darn Assyrians! How dare they tamper with the text! You know it must have been tampered with because you don't understand it! It all makes sense now.  At least Akhan Don is challenging and investigating and trying to understand these terms rather than taking your approach of blaming everyone who does understand these terms with tampering. When you find a Peshitta manuscript that differs 1 single solitary word from any other Peshitta manuscript, then you can make these types of charges. In the meantime, reserve your criticism for the Greek manuscripts where there is plenty of (real) evidence of tampering. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2002 at 08:59 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #26
ahki Paul, I admire your tradition and upbringing and think its wonderful that it has been preserved in a country that tolerates your religious views and mine although we are 180 degrees apart. I see a major flaw in your chart that even you are not able to see because your background and tradition will not allow you to. From my vantage point and Byzantine tradition the COE are no different from Roman Catholics or Orthodoxy because all of you divide the Godhead into three parts regardless of specific abnormalities among you. When two Jacobites/Marionites visited our church recently and handed me Marganitha to read, I compared it to your COE four Qnome and creeds and thought it strange that people could be divided over trivial definitions and man made commandments centuries from the apostles. And then I thought about the persecution and intolerance suffered for the name of Christ in this troubled world among these groups and realised how different I was not having the same persuasions yet believing. We both are bias by our traditions and I believe Christ died for us knowing our weaknesses. But there is one difference between our fellowships that will always separate us as brethren and that is that CHRIST DIED FOR HIMSELF which deity cannot do in order to save us. And then I thought how Jesus must have felt when after three and 1/2 years of preaching, feeding multitudes and showing great signs and wonders in the earth, literally pouring out his cup, that after his passion only 120 followers could be counted who met in that upper room as his friends. If so few from so many were drawn to the master how much less can we expect to be transformed by words in conflict. So let your light shine on whomever it will by any means that even ahki Yukhanan might see more clearly the beauty of holiness in our promised Messiah. The Sun is shinning.  jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2002 at 09:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #27
Shlama Akhi John, >I admire your tradition and upbringing Thank you. As you can tell, I am a typical specimen of that world-view. As such, I am fiercely attached to, and will defend to my dying breath, that world-view and tradition no matter how large the opposition. >and think its wonderful that >it has been preserved in >a country that tolerates your >religious views and mine although >we are 180 degrees apart. It's actually quite new to this country. Less than 100 years ago. I am very thankful that the freedoms in this country allow me to freely practice what was forbidden in my own homeland. But make no mistake about it - this is a totally Semitic viewpoint that has its origin in neither Europe nor its children. >I see a major flaw >in your chart that even >you are not able to >see because your background and >tradition will not allow you >to. That's true of anything. >From my vantage point >and Byzantine tradition the COE >are no different from Roman >Catholics or Orthodoxy because all >of you divide the Godhead >into three parts regardless of >specific abnormalities among you. In that regard the CoE is no different from any of the other ancient traditions - only different in terminology that's used. We formulate according to Semitic linguistics in contrast to even other middle-eastern churches which were influenced by Hellenism and Greek linguistics. >When two Jacobites/Marionites visited our church >recently and handed me Marganitha >to read, I compared it >to your COE four Qnome >and creeds and thought it >strange that people could be >divided over trivial definitions and >man made commandments centuries from >the apostles. "Four Qnome?" We have no "Four Qnome." We have Three Qnome in one God. >And then I >thought about the persecution and >intolerance suffered for the name >of Christ in this troubled >world among these groups and >realised how different I was >not having the same persuasions >yet believing. Amen. This very issue is what got Nestorius exiled to the desert of Egypt where he later died. >We both are >bias by our traditions Yes, we are. >and >I believe Christ died for >us knowing our weaknesses. Absolutely. >But >there is one difference between >our fellowships that will always >separate us as brethren and >that is that CHRIST DIED >FOR HIMSELF which deity cannot >do in order to save >us.
Christ did not die for himself. This teaching is a total stranger to the scriptures. Christ died for you and I. And we agree that diety cannot die. That's where Qnoma comes in. Christ's human Qnoma died on the cross - not the divine Qnoma. You are attacking a straw man of your own making. >And then I thought >how Jesus must have felt >when after three and 1/2 >years of preaching, feeding multitudes >and showing great signs and >wonders in the earth, literally >pouring out his cup, that >after his passion only 120 >followers could be counted who >met in that upper room >as his friends. Yup. We agree. >If so >few from so many were >drawn to the master how >much less can we expect >to be transformed by words >in conflict. That's why it's so important to study the Message in the original language it was revealed in. There is no conflict in words in that language. No straw men. >So let your >light shine on whomever it >will by any means that >even ahki Yukhanan might see >more clearly the beauty of >holiness in our promised Messiah. >The Sun is shinning. Yes it is - go out and enjoy the first day of spring and think of how wondrously God has made our world so that our human Qnoma can observe the beauty of all His creation. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
BarKhela
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-20-2002 at 04:46 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #29
>> > >"You are attacking a straw man >of your own making." What does this line mean? It sounds very clever. Also, what did you mean when you said that we have the same Qnoma, but in different numbers? Thanx >
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Mar-20-2002 at 05:45 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #31
If I may answer in this case Akhi Bar Khela... To put up a straw man means to misrepresent the argument of your opponent. This is done by characterizing that argument as overly simplistic--in essence, making it artificially weak. Your opponent may, for example, give four great reasons for his position, and then you pick only the weakest one and ignore the other three. Such a tactic is quite rampant lately. As for QNOMA being the same kind but a different number, basically what that means is that we COLLECTIVELY as human beings have the same kind of QNOMA--a mortal one. However, my QNOMA is not your QNOMA, nor is yours mine. We do not share one QNOMA. Rather, while we have the same kind, they are not identical. Now, I do not wish to confuse you, but at the QNOMA level we cannot tell what makes yours different from mine. When those differences emerge that separate us an individuals, then we are talking about PARSOPA. Hope this helps! Shlama w'burkate Andrew Gabriel Roth
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2002 at 09:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #26
Mar Drywood w'Akhi Paul, >In the meantime, reserve your criticism >for the Greek manuscripts where >there is plenty of (real) >evidence of tampering. I guess I can be critical of Peshitta when it gets crosswise with my Theology too. There are some things I had to reconsider in light of Peshitta, not just because of the NT, but also because of the lingua franca, in fact the ipissima vox, of first cenutry Church fathers. How arrogant have we become in the west to ignore such things? No wonder the apostle said 'foolishness to the Yvanits', as we chose to live blind thinking we are wise. Bwq9y Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-19-2002 at 09:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #28
Shlama Akhi Iakov, >How arrogant have we become in >the west to ignore such >things? Had Meshikha delivered His message in Swahili I swear to you all that I would be placing that language on a pedestal and doing all I could to understand the revelation of His message according to Swahili psyche and the sociology behind Swahili linguistics. The gulf between the Semitic and the Hellenistic psyche is immense. And in that gulf are thousands upon thousands of Greek versions with a bewildering array of variants that have not, even today, been completely cataloged. The battle between the Semitic mindset and the Hellenistic mindset is as old as the Message itself. Unfortunately, today there are 1.5 billion believers who are not even aware of the importance of this debate. In the West, Hellenism eventually won. And so today when a believer hears 'Agape' they are comfortable and at home, but when the strange-sounding foreign term 'Rakhma' is brought up - it immediately draws confusion and an uncomfortable feeling. 'Hypostasis' sounds familiar and true - but what's this 'Qnoma' thingie? Must be something those heretics in the desert invented to tamper with the original meaning. It's by the sheer grace of God that these types of things didn't interfere with the main point of the Message in the West. It's not as if by using Hellenistic terminology the message was altered - it wasn't. It has been preserved as well as it possibly could given the circumstances. But I believe, I truly feel, that so many viewpoints that differ from the Orthodox can be attributed to poorly-worded translations like "3 persons in 1 God." You can almost see where this would be problematic. And you can almost understand why the JW's and Christadelphians and the Ebionites and the Arians, and all others who deny this essential truth of Orthodoxy - you can truly understand why they have a problem with this wording. The Truth (with a capital T) lies within the Semitic framework from within which the Message was revealed. Akhi John - it is apparent that your intent here is not to learn about that Semitic framework - especially where it would differ from your pre-conceived notions - but only to gather information on how exactly the Peshitta fits into the heretical schema you have drawn up in your own mind. Good luck - and let me know if and when you decide to take down the straw men and put down the club. I'll be here when you want to learn something about this lingual psyche (which is all I'm good for, anyway.) Ciao. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-20-2002 at 10:34 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #30
just for the record ahki, I believe in three qnomas too but separately as your translation of Peshitta Luke 3:21-22 agrees with my KING JAMES that Yukhanan baptized Eshoo and while he prayed heaven was opened and the Spirit of Holiness descended upon him in the likeness of the form of a dove and a voice came from heaven You are My Son beloved in whom I am pleased. So clearly there must be three separate qunomas: One of Alaha in heaven (deity himself) One of Spirit of Holiness between heaven and earth (deities power) One of My Son on earth. (deities only begotten Son of himself) No straw man or contention here only common sense which teaches three separate things in three separate places taking up three separate spaces. So from your faulty reasoning you have manufactured your own straw man that can only be perceived in one space at one time. Oh, you reason thats not true, the qnoma of My Son is split into two halves, one human, the other divine. So, now you have two deities, half of which is on earth, the other half in heaven. The third part the Psalmist 139:7 says is everywhere. Now your straw man I would like to call the potatoe. However, the Peshitta scripture tells me in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (but I dont read Aramaic you say only rearrange things to my liking) I would have you know that the head of the woman is the man; the head of every man is Christ; and the head of Christ is God. Heres a very simple chart that even Assyrians and Judaizers can follow: God Christ Man Woman Now I want all you potatoe splitters to (this is Hebrew you know) kulam mochaeem eetee kaf. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-20-2002 at 10:39 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #33
Akhi Yukhanan, >No straw man or contention here >only common sense which teaches >three separate things in three >separate places taking up three >separate spaces. You still have that Greek hat on. Trying to understand Aramaic thought through Greek philosophical glasses is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You make it look easy, though. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2002 at 02:01 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #34
hello potatoe splitters, Im still in the comparing mode using the traditional Greek text =KING JAMES Cambridge for comparison because nothing that I have read in the Peshitta disagrees with it for the most part. Yes there are some grey areas but by in large all the majority Greek texts that make up the textus receptus agree with one another (according to Scrivener only 119 minor differences). The GNT for Luke alone has over 1000 burps so forget GNT as a suitable authority unless your drunk. Now linguistics must be compared against itself in the same text. Ie. The Aramaic phrase in Luke 2:11 the LORD Messiah 0xy4m 0yrm is similar to the construction for the LORD God at 1:32 0hl0 0yrm without Roths copula invention. However a similar phrase with a prolitic at 9:20 the Messiah of God 0hl0d hxy4m puts a different slant on the meaning that you do not have to know Aramaic to see the problem. All the Greek texts agree with the Peshitta except for the added intrepetation of MaR-Yah which you reason makes things clear. Well, it doesnt. MaR-YaH before Messiah and God is only an appellative for titles expanded to the LORD YAH Messiah or the LORD YAH God so you are back to square one. The POT makes more sense of the titles of deity the Lord God. The Messiah OF God has the same construct as the Son OF God neither of which linguistically or by grammar mean God the Messiah or God the Son. So your potato theory is a smoking straw man that the Peshitta itself burns up. Dont criticize me for pointing this out, improve upon it if you can as a native speaking Aramaic. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2002 at 02:12 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #35
Hi right back at ya, Chicken-Mcnuggets with your fries?  >The GNT for Luke alone has over >1000 burps so forget GNT >as a suitable authority unless >your drunk. Now there's something I can agree with. >All the Greek texts agree with the Peshitta >except for the added intrepetation >of MaR-Yah which you reason >makes things clear. Well, it >doesnt. Akhi Yukhanan - please do me a favor. Grab a piece of paper and write the following sentence in big, bold, red, CAPITAL letters : .enola yteiD rof devreser eltit a si haY-raMAfter you're done writing it, stick the paper on your forehead, stand in front of a mirror and recite it out loud 1,000 times. :k Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2002 at 08:29 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #36
Im use to seeing things backwords- reading to much Aramaic I quess- so yes Maryah is reserved for deity, so what. Here are some Aramaic glosses I have found in the Peshitta that you can comment on: (1) he Messiah of the LORD Luke 2:26 (not a gloss but that deity is MarYah) however when we go to Luke 4:41 (2) the Messiah has been added to the son of God which no known Greek text has. Therefore a gloss or exalted text, WHY? Go to Luke 5:3 (3) who is Keepa explains who this Shimon is, again not found in any Greek text and the verse in the traditional text is maybe awkward at least something here is paraphrase. Now all potato splitters might like this one at Luke4:18 (4) he (God) has anointed (by his spirit or christened) me (Jesus). A verbal threesome WOW! Oh oh! Read on. he (God) has sent (apostolized) me (Jesus) another darn threesome and verbs too. Oh Oh! The Greek burns the straw man here by splitting the verb into two echrise me and apestalche me. Now putting aside theology we might simply read all this as a verbal sentence. Oh yes, did I mention the gloss in Acts 1:1 (5) (our Lord) Eshoa (the Messiah), the words in brackets have been added in the Peshitta and not found in any Greek text, Not KING JAMES either. Im making a list of others but these will suffice for now. Without your interlinear, I wouldnt be able to do this. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2002 at 09:54 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #37
Shlama Akhi Yukhanan, > Im use to seeing >things backwords- reading to much >Aramaic I quess Backwards ? Isn't English writing a child of Latin (and therefore Greek) ? Greek was derived from Semitic writing, which was right-to-left. So which one is backwards ?  >so yes Maryah is reserved for deity, >so what. If that's a question - the answer is "SO EVERYTHING". >Here are some >Aramaic glosses I have found >in the Peshitta that you >can comment on: You know I love to comment. >(1) he Messiah of the LORD >Luke 2:26 (not a gloss >but that deity is MarYah) The meaning of "Messiah of MarYah": 
>(2) however when we go to >Luke 4:41 the Messiah has been added >to the son of God >which no known Greek text >has. Therefore a gloss or >exalted text, WHY? You asked two irrelevant questions. So what if no known Greek text has 'The Messiah' ? I don't scrutinize the contents of the Peshitta based on what the "Greek Texts (plural)" may or may not have! How's about instead of calling it a "gloss" or an "exalted text" - how's about calling it the "original text" and calling the fact that it's missing from Greek manuscripts a "deletion", or as you so elequently put it - a "burp" ? What do I care what the Greek mess reads like ? >(3) Go to >Luke 5:3 who is Keepa explains >who this Shimon is, again >not found in any Greek >text and the verse in >the traditional text is maybe >awkward at least something here >is paraphrase. Again - why should I care what the Greek mess reads like ? Why are you approaching me with this argument - using the Greek mss (shorthand for 'mess') as authoritative ? Should I also criticize the Peshitta if certain teachings of the Messiah are not recorded in the Quran ? This is a major difference between you and I. As far as I'm concerned - I could care less what's in or what's not in the Greek texts. Or the Ethiopian texts, or the Coptic texts, or the Latin texts, or the Swahili texts, or your buddy King James. They all derive from one gigantic mess. Westcott, Hort, Nestle and Aland all nobly tried in vain to clean it up and present it to the world as a polished gem. Too bad it's a Chicken McNugget - they wasted their time. I have ONE text which just happens to insignificantly be in the same language of the Messiah and His Apostles. I compare it to none else except to demonstrate scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the text that's been revered since the beginning in the East is the very same text that came from the Apostles hands and is the very same text which underlies the mess of versions that have plagued us since the day Zorba tried to play scribe. Attempting to compare the Peshitta reading to the Greek readings with me means your argument automatically falls upon deaf ears. Are you drunk ? >(4) Now all potato >splitters might like this one >at Luke4:18 > he (God) has anointed (by >his spirit or christened) me >(Jesus).
Yes, here's the chart again in case you still don't understand who was "christened":

>WOW! Oh oh! Read on. >he (God) has sent (apostolized) >me (Jesus) When I first made these charts I had no idea how useful they would be, or how stubborn you would be. Here's the meaning of that verse:

>The Greek burns the straw >man here by splitting the >verb into two echrise me >and apestalche me. So ????? >Oh yes, >did I mention the gloss >in Acts 1:1 >(5) (our Lord) Eshoa (the Messiah), >the words in brackets have >been added in the Peshitta >and not found in any >Greek text, Not KING JAMES >either. Uh-oh ! It's not in the KING JAMES ? If THAT'S the case then I'm going to contact the Patriarch and personally advise him to issue an order to trash the Peshitta and adopt the King James version in our tradition. Thanks to King James of England for pointing out the error of our ways. >Im making a list of others >but these will suffice for >now. Without your interlinear, I >wouldnt be able to do >this. Glad to be of service. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2002 at 11:30 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #38
This chart of your making needs revision. You assume two qnomas for the son, in my KING JAMES there was only one birth. At least you have condescended to calling him Maran, not MarYah in parsopa perception however so are we if by this you mean spirit influenced. The crossover line in your chart from deity son-qnoma to Meshikha parsopa I understood to be the incarnation line not the spirits influence. Can I suggest a needed revision by erasing that line especially when it passes through an imaginary threesome. Would a moron understand your chart I think even they can be saved by the simplicity that theres a deity in heaven who sent his son as the Messiah and by the help of Gods power can raise all men who love the son to become immortal and live a very long time. Now the scriptures teach that only deity has immortality and this gift is bestowed not begotten. This is why your chart is wrong and maybe the KING JAMES TRANSLATION preserves the correct concept in its simplicity that you make mysterious. Oh Oh! Your from that place called Mystery, Babylon THE GREAT but then the Peshitta ignores that book like the plague- sounds too much like a conspiracy or something against all Assyrians. Speaking of which I would like you to answer something that has puzzled me in that forbidden book. Is there a difference in the Peshitto translation between two identical verses in Greek & English: Rev 1:6 & 5:10 ? jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-21-2002 at 11:59 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #39
Shlama Akhi Yukhanan, >This chart >of your making needs revision. 
>You assume two qnomas for >the son, in my KING >JAMES there was only one >birth. You still don't understand the term. There was only one birth therefore there is only one Parsopa. Qnoma is not limited to physical birth. It's not a physical concept. Take those glasses off. >At least you have >condescended to calling him Maran, >not MarYah in parsopa perception I call him both just like the Aramaic scriptures do. >however so are we if >by this you mean spirit >influenced. I mean nothing of the sort. It's your deliberate refusal to understand anything else but King James English that's the obstacle. >The crossover line in >your chart from deity son-qnoma >to Meshikha parsopa I understood >to be the incarnation line >not the spirits influence. Yes, I think you got it. >Can I suggest a needed revision >by erasing that line especially >when it passes through an >imaginary threesome. No you can't. This is not Aramaic according to John Drywood. >Would a moron >understand your chart I think >even they can be saved >by the simplicity that theres >a deity in heaven who >sent his son as the >Messiah and by the help >of Gods power can raise >all men who love the >son to become immortal and >live a very long time. Galatians 1:6-9 >Now the scriptures teach that >only deity has immortality and >this gift is bestowed not >begotten. Straw man. Who said anything otherwise ? >This is why your >chart is wrong Wow! A conclusion like that from a straw man! >and maybe >the KING JAMES TRANSLATION preserves >the correct concept in its >simplicity that you make mysterious. To the Greeks this seems like foolishness. > Oh Oh! Your from >that place called Mystery, Babylon >THE GREAT Did you fail geography and history? I'm from Nineveh in Assyria - bitter enemies of the Babylonians. Pick up something other than the KJV sometimes and learn. >but then the >Peshitta ignores that book like >the plague- sounds too much >like a conspiracy or something >against all Assyrians.  For speaking against BABYLON? Those darn Babylonians! What was Peter thinking going there and visiting the believers there? A quick question - who's your favorite character in the Old Testament? Jonah? I suppose there's a conspiracy against Assyrians in Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John as well ? Your silly remarks betray your lack of knowledge on the history of the book of Revelation - the same book that not even the Western church accepted for hundreds of years after it showed up on the scene. >Speaking >of which I would like >you to answer something that >has puzzled me in that >forbidden book. It's not forbidden at all - we just don't have an Aramaic original and we seriously doubt the Apostolic origin of that book (as your forefathers in the Roman realms did as well.) >Is there >a difference in the Peshitto >translation between two identical verses >in Greek & English: Rev >1:6 & 5:10 ? I'll check when I get home. Ciao. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
jdrywood
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-22-2002 at 01:25 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #40
oh oh, My wife read the Roman slur in that last post, shes Italian descend. Now shes throwing water on me for it. }> The Byzantine txt corrects Peshitta at John 1:18 the only begotten (of) God seeing that it is consistent in John 3:16 who the real begotten is. Who knows I might find other glosses for you. Your SILENCE on this verse speaks volumes especially when it conflicts with verse 14. jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-22-2002 at 01:56 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #41
Shlama Akh, >My wife read the Roman slur in that last post, shes Italian descend. Now shes throwing water on me for it. }> Roman slur? What about it made you think it's a slur? >The Byzantine txt corrects Peshitta at >John 1:18 the only begotten >(of) God seeing that it >is consistent in John 3:16 >who the real begotten is. It doesn't correct Peshitta (as if that's a possibility.) It makes better Greek construction than the Aramaic from which it's derived. Akhan Iakov can speak better about this than I can. >Who knows I might find >other glosses for you. Anything can happen. >Your SILENCE on this verse speaks >volumes especially when it conflicts >with verse 14. What silence? If you want me to address Greek texts, don't hold your breath. I'm not into the cookie-cutter approach. YOU go ahead and nit-pick your preferred readings. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-25-2002 at 08:35 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #42
Shlama Akhi Paul, >>The Byzantine txt corrects Peshitta at >>John 1:18 the only begotten >>(of) God seeing that it >>is consistent in John 3:16 >>who the real begotten is. Remember akh Paul this was one of my points weeks ago? That is, the Byzantine is a correction as Peshitta and Papyri agree on 'only begotten God'. The genitive is a gloss. Mar Drywood went on about the genitive case afterward. His statements did not reflect a basic understanding of first semester Koine Greek. I want that to be very clear to others on this forum. However Mar Drywood is correct about Byzantine scribes which had to change the text to agree with 3:16 and that is how glosses occurr.
Akhi Paul did you mean to draw a parallel between Quran & GNT? Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Mar-25-2002 at 06:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #44
Shlama Akhi Yaqub, >>>The Byzantine txt corrects Peshitta at >>>John 1:18 the only begotten >>>(of) God seeing that it >>>is consistent in John 3:16 >>>who the real begotten is. > >Remember akh Paul this was one >of my points weeks ago? >That is, the Byzantine is >a correction as Peshitta and >Papyri agree on 'only begotten >God'. The genitive is a >gloss. Mar Drywood went on >about the genitive case afterward. >His statements did not reflect >a basic understanding of first >semester Koine Greek. I want >that to be very clear >to others on this forum. That's what he's trying to get to! >However Mar Drywood is correct about >Byzantine scribes which had to >change the text to agree >with 3:16 and that is >how glosses occurr. Absolutely. >Akhi Paul did you mean to >draw a parallel between Quran >& GNT? Not at all, Akha. I was simply trying to make the point that as Muslims feel that the NT must be compared to the Quran to get to the truth - in the same way Mar Drywood is trying to tell me that the Aramaic scriptures must be compared to the Greek (that is, his favourite manuscripts of the Greek.) Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-25-2002 at 08:58 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #45
Shlama Akhi Paul, This statement of Mar Drywood says it all: >>>>The Byzantine txt corrects Peshitta at >>>>John 1:18 the only begotten >>>>(of) God seeing that it >>>>is consistent in John 3:16 >>>>who the real begotten is. It says the Byz. came after Peshitta and it glosses Peshitta so as to be the equivlent of 3:16. >I was simply trying to make >the point that as Muslims >feel that the NT must >be compared to the Quran >to get to the truth >- in the same way >Mar Drywood is trying to >tell me that the Aramaic >scriptures must be compared to >the Greek (that is, his >favourite manuscripts of the Greek.)
I'm glad I asked and didn't make an incorrect assumption. Also did you have a chance to show your relatives that Arabic manuscript? Mar Drywood is correct about the PNT needing to be compared to the GNT in one aspect. In order to properly understand GNT one must undertake a study of PNT and learn Aramaic. One must be careful though as their preconceived ideas may be at risk. Bwq9y Fk^rwbw 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Mar-25-2002 at 08:35 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #37
Mar Drywood, > Im use to seeing >things backwords-
How tempting. >(2) the Messiah has been added >to the son of God >which no known Greek text >has. It's fun to live in make believe land isn't it?'ho khristos' in Alpha, Q, Theta, Psi Oh Oh! >The Greek burns the straw >man here by splitting the >verb into two echrise me >and apestalche me. What is your point??? Speak to me from a Greek grammatical perspective as I did with you parsing the verbs and explaining the force behind them. Otherwise you are like a boxer striking the wind. That is to say you hit nothing.
Now >putting aside theology we might >simply read all this as >a verbal sentence. See??? Nothing.
Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|