Peshitta Forum

Full Version: "MarYah deception" ???
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Rafa, you may have had to address me, as Alex does not adhere to any particular understanding.

When will you understand that the Bible is above all traditions? Are you prepared to say that the apostles were heretics, as he was baptized in the name of Jesus only? Do you not know that when you use the name "Jesus", you adress all the fulness of the Godhead? How could you possibly put your traditions above the word of God?


Acts 2:38 - Then Simon said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of the LORD Jesus for the remission of sins, so that you may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Don't forget, Peter was not alone doing this, the twelve stood with him and confirmed his words!


Or, are you ready to say that Peter is a heretic:
Acts 10:48 - And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ. And they urged him to remain with them a few days.

Or Philip?
Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:16 - For as yet it had not come upon them although they had been baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus.

Or Paul?
Acts 19:3 - Then he said to them, By what baptism then were you baptized? They said, By the baptism of John.
Acts 19:4 - Then said Paul, John verily baptized the people with the baptism of repentance, saying unto them that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is, Jesus Christ.
(note that his theology does not allow for the formula you believe to be proper)
Acts 19:5 - When they heard these things, they were baptized in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ
Acts 19:6 - And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke in divers tongues, and prophesied.

Romans 6:3 - Do you not know, that those of us who have been baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into his death?
(again, his theology does not allow for the formula you believe to be proper)

Acts 4:12 - There is no salvation by any other man; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
(neither does Peter's theology allow for the formula you believe to be proper)

Colossians 2:12 - And you were buried with him in baptism, and by him you were raised with him, for you believed in the power of God who raised him from the dead.
(theology again)

1Corinthians 1:13 - Why? Is Christ divided? or was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Corinthians 1:15 - So no man can say that I have baptized in my own name.
(theology again)

Back to Matthew 28:19, consider this:
Colossians 2:9 - For in him is embodied all the fulness of the Godhead.
(that includes any part of the godhead.)
Also, consider there is scripture to support that the name of the Son is Jesus, the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus, and the name of the Father is Jesus. Also, the NT clearly teaches that Jesus is the only name given for salvation. Jesus taught that we have to follow the Apostle's teachings.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are titles, not names. Jesus said to use the name, not the titles. Matthew 28:19 was a commandment to the apostles, they had the God-given right to interpret that command through the Holy Spirit, which they obviously did. Who are we to question them?
Even if you can get your mind to disregard scripture, can you really call me a heretic, following the apostle's example?

We are, in fact, "baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit", whereas you are "baptizing them in the titles of the father, son and holy spirit, saying "in the name" does not make it a name.
justalex Wrote:Thank you Andrej for that indepth study. However for me questions remain. Who was talking from heaven after Jesus was baptized? After His transfiguration? This would mean in essence that "god" was talking to and about "HIMSELF", which in my mind makes no sense since HE never did so before but talked to the prophets before.

You'll notice that satan always says, if you are the son of "god" etc. Surely satan knew the son and the FATHER before the son came to earth because it was through/by (it's listed both ways) the son that all things were made, including satan.

Jesus cried out "into your hands I commit my spirit". His spirit would have to be "God's" spirit if he were "god" So was he committing His spirit back to Himself?

And lastly because I worked alte and I'm exhausted. "Jesus" said , "esteem me as I was esteemed "with" YOU before the creation of the earth". This shows that "Jesus" and the FATHER were together before the creation of the earth, however not that he was the FATHER.

For the rest of the the epeople that posted, thank you for you time however I posted only to Andrej as he seems out of the group, the least likely to have a contentious and argumentative spirit. If I am wrong, between his and my conversation, perhaps he will be able to show me what you cannot so I ask that you allow us to continue in peace without the distractions of "personalities" getting in the way. As it stands right now, I won't bother with other posters on this issue anyway so at least do not clutter the board with posts that won't be answered.

Again thanks Andrej, you are a man of your word and I salute you for that.

justalex
Your questions show that you understood much more than you seem to admit. Yet, i seem to have failed to make my point. i attempted to let scripture speak by itself as much as possible. But, sometimes, the most simplest of things require the most detailed of explanations. i believe that if i would have chosen my words more precisely, i would have made my point. i will attempt to fill in the gaps i may have left.

When Jesus speaks, he sometime speaks exclusively as a human, and sometimes exclusively as God. When he says "I" followed by a reference / contrast to the father, it usually refers to his human nature. When he says "I" and does not refer to the father, it may refer to his human or his divine nature. Further, "son of man" is usually the human, "son of God" (or most cases where "son" only is used to refer to Christ) may refer to Jesus before his birth. In a manner of speaking, all revelation of God may be referred to as "son", depending on what aspect of that revelation is to be portrayed. But note that the only begotten son is the human, born of Mary.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Of course the father is not equal to the son, but the son is the most you will ever be able to percieve of the father. To us humans, from our perspective, the Son is the Father. If we llok towards the Father, we see the Son. He is the mediator.


Let me expalin in a different manner (i will not use a lot of scripture right now, but if you want proof for anything, ask for it. Please also use your God-given logic.):
At the moment of creation, before time, before space, before matter, before even heaven itself existed, there was the word. This word is the very first, very highest, very purest and most primary revelation of God. But, before that moment of creation, there was nothing. Nothing but God. God unpercieved, unrevealed, unseen, invisible, unknown, incomprehensible, untouchable, unreachable, undefinable. Philosophically, one could speak of the "absolute origin". Biblically, this is "I AM", self-existent, Hayyah, Yahweh. This is what Jesus referred to as the "Father", and what he himself related to in his speeches (note: many times in the Bible, God takes on the role of a father, like the Father of israel, but those are not references to the presented concept, but simply further revelations of God).
There was a time when everything was nothing but God. Since this singularity, you may say, had no reference point (creation), it, by our understanding, could not be set apart by any definition.
God is good and holy, but God cannot be percieved as good or holy when nothing but himself exists, when there is no evil, or no "less good/holy" to set him apart from. The same counts for all other attributes of God. As he was the only thing in existence, there was no way to define him. When God began creation, at the very moment of creation (the moment called the beginning), he was revealed as the word (or idea, mind, ...).
When he created light and sepreated it from the darkenss, he became light. When he created love and seperated it from fear, he became love. When he created life and seperated it from death, he became life. When he created truth, he separated it from the lies and became truth. In this manner, God revealed himself in his own creation. As the ambition of creation was man, from the very beginning of creation, he had it in mind to create man, and he had it in mind that he will one day reveal himself as man. In order to accomplish that, the word became flesh. From this perspective, Jesus was, through his human nature, referring to himself as the word, in relation to the father.

But since he was revealed in human form, he was "made a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9). He became a man. But God is not a man, so the man Jesus had to submit to God. As God reveals himself in creation, that revelation is part of creation. As it is part of creation, it is submitted to the Father. As part of creation, that revelation is also limited. As Christ was also a man, part of creation, and submitted to the Father, he had to do his part as part of creation. He had to be what man is supposed to be. That is how he revealed himself as the perfect human. He was as we are supposed to be. So, in Christ, there were two things indivisibly revealed: The Father (the origin reaching to creation, or God reaching to man), and the Son (creation reaching to the origin, or man reaching to God). In Jesus, God is percieved, revealed, seen, visible, known, comprehensible, touchable, reachable, definable.

This should not be hard to understand, as the exact same thing happens to us in reverse. We, as humans, when we receive the Holy Ghost, We have the spirit of God within us. But, that spirit works twofold. In one way, it will reveal the divine power of God and allow us to do all kinds of miraculous things and reveal the gifts of the spirit. In another way, it will humble us, and draw us to repentance, and bring forth the fruits of the spirit.

The two natures are as the oil and flour in the sacrificial bread. Just as you cannot divide the oil from the flour, you cannot divide the human Jesus from God. It is the mystery of godliness.

This is the only way to understand "contradictions" like these:
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

In John 6:46, Jesus speaks as man. He refers to the fact that the Father is beyond any human perception. In John 14:9, he speaks as God. He refers to the fact that he is the highest revelation of God possibly percievable. There are literally hundreds of such examples.

Another kind of example is this:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Jesus referred to the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. As Jesus is the highest revelation of God, his name is also the highest to us ("Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)).

To sum it up (i tried to express this before and failed):
Whenever you read of or about Christ, you must ask: Is he speaking as the eternal God, or is he speaking as the perfectly submit and humble human? With this in mind, all makes sense.

i realized i once said that Jesus is clearly identified as YHWH, even without the peshitta. i will give one crystal clear example (there are many) so i will have not said vain words:
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (YHWH) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

If the trinity was eternally three persons, then did the concept of numbers coexist with the trinity from the beginning? Did the complex concept of personality exist from the beginning? What about submission, relation, ...? Was God always revealed?
Mere logic will show this to be wrong. Before the beginning, there was nothing but God undefinable. At the beginning, there was the Word, which is God.

Luk 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

After having said all this, i should add that there is always moe to know about God, and that all we have dealt with here is merely the literal, logical, or theoretical ground. There is so much more about him. We need to know him on a personal level, not only on a theoretical level. Though i am certain that all the apostles would have agreed with at least most i said, they never bothered to say it in such a way, as they were much more concerned with the spirit than with facts. Relationship over theology. Understanding is worthless if you do not have a genuine and loving relationship with Jesus. i pray that God will reveal himself to anyone reading this with an open heart, anyone not building his faith on anything outside of the Bible.

justalex Wrote:Thank you Andrej for that indepth study. However for me questions remain. Who was talking from heaven after Jesus was baptized? After His transfiguration? This would mean in essence that "god" was talking to and about "HIMSELF", which in my mind makes no sense since HE never did so before but talked to the prophets before.
God was talking about the most perfect of all humans, his Son. Yet, God was also revealed in Jesus. God can reveal himself in many ways at once. When the saints received the Holy Spirit at the day of pentecost, he was revealed as tongues of fire, through the gift of tongues and in the hearts of the believers. Yet, there was only one God. In everything God created, he has a way of revealing himself. Yet, he does not seem to think in dimensions as we do, but rather in concepts.
For the sake of clarification, instead of saying Jesus had two natures, one may also say he had two personalities, though this is inaccurate, because these two personalities were entirely different things, and the only thing they had in common is the fact that they could refer to themselves as "I".

justalex Wrote:You'll notice that satan always says, if you are the son of "god" etc. Surely satan knew the son and the FATHER before the son came to earth because it was through/by (it's listed both ways) the son that all things were made, including satan.
Satan was tempting the human Jesus. It would not make sense to tempt God. But the human had to be tempted in every way. i don't believe that Satan truly comprehended who Jesus was (though he may have understood it partially). Even most of God's children nowadays don't understand that. it is the "mystery of godliness". Also, satan does not know the Father in the way you seem to propose. The revelation of God that is most natural to satan may be the one who sits upon the throne in heaven. But, even this is only a revelation of the Father, as the Bible asserts "heaven and earth shall pass away". It is not the eternally unknowable himself.

justalex Wrote:Jesus cried out "into your hands I commit my spirit". His spirit would have to be "God's" spirit if he were "god" So was he committing His spirit back to Himself?
He commited his human spirit to God, as we all will one day die, and our spirits will come to judgement. Jesus' role at the cross was almost entirely human, save for the fact that he was the perfect human, the God-man. Even here, he was still God. It was just not the focus.

Proof he was still YHWH:
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

justalex Wrote:"Jesus" said , "esteem me as I was esteemed "with" YOU before the creation of the earth". This shows that "Jesus" and the FATHER were together before the creation of the earth, however not that he was the FATHER.
This is one of the very toughest questions to me. Yet, i suppose, i can meld it with my concept of God far more simply than any trinitarian doctrine could. There are only about three or four cases (as far as i know, no certainty here) in the NT where the Son seems to refer to the revelation of God as a whole (meaning, all of God that is revealed in creation). This is one of these times. The Word (existing before the world), in a manner of speaking, is also the Son, or offspring, of God.
i should add, that i did not yet study this specific topic in detail, so my terminology may be quite wrong. i realize that the explanation i gave to this question is insuficcient, even if the approach was appropriate. Though, i thank God for letting me know i do not have all the answers. It is always good to have an incentive to seek even further revelation.
Rafa Wrote:Alex, your Sabellian understanding of the Trinity is hindering your understanding...

Here :

Quote:The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons [ QNUMA to be precise] who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

Of course, people immediately recognized that Sabellius?s teaching contradicted the historic faith of the Church, and he was quickly excommunicated. His heresy became known as Sabellianism, Modalism, and Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder, Modalism after the three modes or roles which it claimed the one person of the Trinity occupied, and Patripassianism after its implication that the person of the Father (Pater-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus died.

Because Modalism asserts that there is only one person in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages which show Jesus talking to his Father (e.g., John 17), or declaring he is going to be with the Father (John 14:12, 28, 16:10) One role of a person cannot go to be with another role of that person, or say that the two of them will send the Holy Spirit while they remain in heaven (John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, 16:13?15; Acts 2:32?33).

Modalism quickly died out; it was too contrary to the ancient Christian faith to survive for long. Unfortunately, it was reintroduced in the early twentieth century in the new Pentecostal movement. In its new form, Modalism is often referred to as Jesus Only theology since it claims that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely names, modes, or roles of Jesus. Today the United Pentecostal Church, as well as numerous smaller groups which call themselves "apostolic churches," teach the Jesus Only doctrine. Through the Word Faith movement, it has begun to infect traditionally Trinitarian Pentecostalism. Ironically, Trinity Broadcasting Network, operated by Word Faith preacher Paul Crouch, has given a television voice to many of these Jesus Only preachers (who are, of course, militantly anti-Trinitarian).

In the quotes that follow, the Fathers? forceful rejection of Modalism is shown not only when they condemn it by name, but also by passages in which they speak of one person of the Trinity being with another, being sent from another, or speaking to another.


Sabellianism was doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists.[that is false teachers of early Christendom who claimed to receive new revelations]


* Cyprian wrote of them "How, when God the Father is not known--nay, is even blasphemed--can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ only, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins?" (Cyprian, c. 250, W, 5.383,484)

* In 225 Hippolytus spoke of them saying "Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father Himself is the Son."

* Victorinus had this to say of them "Some had doubts about the baptism of those who appeared to recognize the same Father with the Son with us, yet who received the new prophets."

Sabellianism was also referred to by the following Church fathers:

* Dionysius (c. 200-265) wrote "Those baptized in the name of three persons...though baptized by heretics..shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church." (St. Dionysius, Letters and Treatises,p.54).

* "Sabellius...blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa." (Dionysius of Rome, c.264,W, 6.365)

Sabellianism teaching of Modalism and singular name baptism was also accompanied by glossolalia and prophecy among the abovementioned sect of Montanists. [Sound familiar?]

Saint Irenaeus :


"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ?Let us make man in our image and likeness? [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189] emphasis added).

Gregory the Wonderworker :


"But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [person]. . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons?namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature" (A Sectional Confession of Faith 8 [A.D. 262]).

"But if they say, ?How can there be three persons, and how but one divinity?? we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as . . . there is one substance in the Trinity" (ibid., 14).


Hermas :


"The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father?s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]).

Saint Polycarp of Smyrna :


"I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 [A.D. 155] emphasis added).

Saint Athanasius :

"They [the Father and the Son] are one, not as one thing now divided into two, but really constituting only one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the same becomes at one time the Father and at another his own Son. This latter is what Sabellius held, and he was judged a heretic. On the contrary, they are two, because the Father is Father and is not his own Son, and the Son is Son and not his own Father" (Discourses Against the Arians 3:4 [A.D. 360]).


It has also been correctly noted that this Sabellian understanding of the Godhead was one of the reasons for the rise of the Arians (interestingly). That is exactly what I have seen in my personal experience.


Rafa,

Your opinion or labeling of me does absolutely nothing to answer the query I posed. Also, posting everything you can find about the early church means nothing as I have volumes of it right here on my book shelf.

Thank you for your reply however, you still have not posted any scripture that explains how "Jesus" could commit his spirit into His own hands, (not limiting YAH, however,that is what "Jesus" said. Why did "Jesus" say He had finished the work The FATHER had gave Him to do. Why "Jesus" said He could only do the things He had seen the FATHER do and say the things He had heard the FATHER say.


There are many more instances that show a separation h0wever, I leave you with this one:

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as {WE} are.

There is no mistaking what "Jesus" said there is there with the "WE"? And there is no way "Jesus" meant the disciples would be "one" person either is there but on ONE accord, with ONE purpose. Just read all of "John" 17.

justalex
Rafa Wrote:That lengthy post above...did you lean on your own understanding for all this ? From where did you obtain your Christology, from the Apostles or through your fallible meek human understanding? Worse, did you obtain this theology from a false prophet in the bible belt of the United states 100 years ago or less (hardly Jerusalem) ? You have in one post resurrected a good number of heresies of the church (and I'm not nitpicking- you have made serious mistakes!), you gave us a monophysite Christology by saying Christ's divinity and Humanity are indivisible and an amorphous thing neither man or God, you defended Sabellian error by confusing the Son with the Father and saying these are titles or offices which destroys entire chapters of the New Testament, and you accept many of the key points of an Arian who says the Son is a created thing (which is an abomination to assert). Clearly you need to read up on your history to see that there's nothing new under the sun and that all of this has been addressed before in excruciating detail by many sagely individuals, read up on your history, as the evangelist Luke writes : "Physician Heal thyself" !
i have stated before, all this is exclusively from the Bible, the only divine source of the Bible. You are the one that continuously speaks of men's councils and men's ideas.

You say, "Trust in human councils with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.", the Bible says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)

If we are talking about interpretation, you surely know what the Bible says concerning this:

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The Bible tells us that there is no need for your creeds and councils. The Holy Spirit is our council. What we recieve from him, in unity with the word, is above all else.

1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
2Jn 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


i did not say Jesus is neither man nor God, i said he is both. i did not say Son and Father are titles or offices. i said that the Father is only revealed in the Son and all revelation of the Father is the Son. i did not say the son is a created thing, but he is a thing in creation. The Son exists within creation, the Father does not need creation. When speaking of the Son referring to his human flesh, then that flesh, that body was indeed created.
[quoteAndrej wrote:] The Son exists within creation, the Father does not need creation. When speaking of the Son referring to his human flesh, then that flesh, that body was indeed created.[/quote]
Shlama Andrej:
You are expressing Christological position, a "personal" theological position. Would it not be more prudent to say that this is "your opinion". You can voice your opinion but you must respect other's opinions as well and respectfully. In my "opinion/understanding" the Son is co-eternal with the Father. Again, that's my personal opinion. The Son existed before creation and does not need creation to exist. It is His grace which permits him to exist in both Heaven and earth. Again, that's my opinion. The Body of Meshikha exists in eternity as those that have died in the faith and have been redeemed. We which are alive and are on the earth will join them when Yeshua returns and sets his feet on the Mount of Olives. Once again this is my personal understanding of what is written in the scriptures. However, I do not have the final word on this. Everyone must come to their own understanding asthe Spirit of Alaha guides us into all truth.
Please keep in mind that we are all seeking truth here and we should emulate the attributes of love, grace and patience when viewpoints collide.

Shlama,
Stephen
Quote:
The Son existed before creation and does not need creation to exist. It is His grace which permits him to exist in both Heaven and earth. Again, that's my opinion. [quote]


This is more to my point that anyone else's has been... especially since "Jesus" asked the Father to "esteem me as I was esteemed BEFORE the earth was created."

That alone shows that "Jesus" was there BEFORE the earth was made and that He then knew his Father and was esteemed by the Father but was not the Father... as the other gentleman put it, that is my opinion added to what the scripture says.

Jesus also said; "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and {WE} will come unto him, and make {OUR} abode with him.

The special emphasis put on those two words is mine to show that both "Jesus" and the FATHER will come and make THEIR abode with whomever keeps the commands given by "Jesus" from The FATHER.

There are many other scriptures like that one however when it comes to those they are generally overlooked in order to favor the doctrine of trinas.

justalex
Burning one Wrote:
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Jeremy,

You wrote:
Quote:YHWH is His Name, however that should be pronounced, but Marya is not His Name, but instead, perhaps like Adon YHWH from the Hebrew, but let's be clear that it is not His Name, which is YHWH.

"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH. YHWH is not Hebrew, it is the English transliteration of the Hebrew consonants only. It is therefore an English representation of the Hebrew Name.

maybe you don't understand what i was saying: Marya is not the Name given by YHWH. transliteration aside, if you think otherwise, i don't know what to say. hopefully that is not what you meant, because at best, if Marya is intended to be read as you are promoting, then it means Master Yah, not YHWH exclusively. what it would be like is akin to you being named Sir David / MarDavid, right? i know a person actually named Sir, but YHWH's Name is not MarYa in the sense as that being what He gave to the people, which was the transliterated equivalent of YHWH. i hope that clarifies the issue.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" at least includes the correct Aramaic vowel transliteration with the consonants, in English, and is therefore a distinct representation of the Hebrew Name hwhy, as Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary describes it, which I here reproduce using Estrangela characters instead of Serto:
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm[/font] (pronounced ?Marey? with vowels) abs. and constr. , emph. [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm [/font](read ?Mara? with vowels) and [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font](read ?Marya? with vowels)

i appreciate your detailed response, but i've explained what i meant above. Marya is, at best, an abbrievated form of YHWH, or else it would be MarYahweh in the full, right?

gbausc Wrote:The latter form is used only of THE LORD God, and in the Peshitta Version of The O.T. represents the Tetragrammaton.
Paul Younan has given Orham's Dictionary definition, and Jennings has the same definition as Smith's.

once i find incontrovertable evidence to that, i will happily acquiesce to the idea. as for now, i'm open to wondering.

gbausc Wrote:You are simply wrong, Jeremy, when you assert "Maryay" the plural form, used in Acts 16 and elsewhere of humans, to be "Marya".

i would retrack your statement here, David, as i've never suggested that Maryay in Acts 16 is Marya. i'm not sure where you got this, but you're simply wrong. i don't mind friendly disagreements and discussion over the meaning of a word, as it serves to sharpen us, but i didn't ever assert what you've suggested, so please don't wrongfully accuse me of such. maybe you're thinking of someone else?

gbausc Wrote:That is ignorance, as any Peshitta edition with Estrangela or Serto script will show. They have Syame marks (two horizontally aligned dots) placed over all plural nouns and adjectives. The vowels are also different in the plural form.

again, i don't know why you're stating this, as i've not suggested otherwise. i understand the purpose of syame marks, and even though they could be argued in certain places, i've never suggested anything about Acts 16, so be sure your facts are correct before "correcting" someone, please.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" is never used to identify anyone but hwhy.

well, the verdict is still out for me, but i'm always open to new evidence to the contrary.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Burning one Wrote:
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Jeremy,

You wrote:
Quote:YHWH is His Name, however that should be pronounced, but Marya is not His Name, but instead, perhaps like Adon YHWH from the Hebrew, but let's be clear that it is not His Name, which is YHWH.

"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH. YHWH is not Hebrew, it is the English transliteration of the Hebrew consonants only. It is therefore an English representation of the Hebrew Name.

maybe you don't understand what i was saying: Marya is not the Name given by YHWH. transliteration aside, if you think otherwise, i don't know what to say. hopefully that is not what you meant, because at best, if Marya is intended to be read as you are promoting, then it means Master Yah, not YHWH exclusively. what it would be like is akin to you being named Sir David / MarDavid, right? i know a person actually named Sir, but YHWH's Name is not MarYa in the sense as that being what He gave to the people, which was the transliterated equivalent of YHWH. i hope that clarifies the issue.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" at least includes the correct Aramaic vowel transliteration with the consonants, in English, and is therefore a distinct representation of the Hebrew Name hwhy, as Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary describes it, which I here reproduce using Estrangela characters instead of Serto:
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm[/font] (pronounced ?Marey? with vowels) abs. and constr. , emph. [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm [/font](read ?Mara? with vowels) and [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font](read ?Marya? with vowels)

i appreciate your detailed response, but i've explained what i meant above. Marya is, at best, an abbrievated form of YHWH, or else it would be MarYahweh in the full, right?

gbausc Wrote:The latter form is used only of THE LORD God, and in the Peshitta Version of The O.T. represents the Tetragrammaton.
Paul Younan has given Orham's Dictionary definition, and Jennings has the same definition as Smith's.

once i find incontrovertable evidence to that, i will happily acquiesce to the idea. as for now, i'm open to wondering.

gbausc Wrote:You are simply wrong, Jeremy, when you assert "Maryay" the plural form, used in Acts 16 and elsewhere of humans, to be "Marya".

i would retrack your statement here, David, as i've never suggested that Maryay in Acts 16 is Marya. i'm not sure where you got this, but you're simply wrong. i don't mind friendly disagreements and discussion over the meaning of a word, as it serves to sharpen us, but i didn't ever assert what you've suggested, so please don't wrongfully accuse me of such. maybe you're thinking of someone else?

gbausc Wrote:That is ignorance, as any Peshitta edition with Estrangela or Serto script will show. They have Syame marks (two horizontally aligned dots) placed over all plural nouns and adjectives. The vowels are also different in the plural form.

again, i don't know why you're stating this, as i've not suggested otherwise. i understand the purpose of syame marks, and even though they could be argued in certain places, i've never suggested anything about Acts 16, so be sure your facts are correct before "correcting" someone, please.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" is never used to identify anyone but hwhy.

well, the verdict is still out for me, but i'm always open to new evidence to the contrary.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


Shlama Jeremy,

Sorry for confusing you with someone else. I think it was Justalex.
You did write this however:
Quote:i was suggesting that the AN"K's usage of the "spelling" of MARYA / MARYE' could be evidence that it should have been understood singularly, in the Aramaic, as well. of course we can't totally know, but it is interesting that the LXX chose to render it singular, instead of plural.
Here you suggest MARYE may be singular- MARYA, which is the same thing Justalex wrote of Acts 16, so I see no difference where in scripture this argument is used. The plural form is marked and voweled as plural in Isaiah as it is in Acts 16.

I wrote:
Quote:"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH.
Actually, neither Marya nor YHWH is His Name. Both are English transliterations of Hebrew and Aramaic Names. "Marya" represents the Aramaic Name [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font], which represents hwhy.
You are splitting hairs, I think, in denying Marya [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] represents YHWH hwhy, if you are insisting that the Peshitta must use the Hebrew form hwhy in order to contain God's Name. The Jews of the 1st century did not speak Hebrew in public; it was reserved for the synagogue in the reading of scripture, and even then required a Targum in Aramaic for the people to understand. Yeshua's preaching and teaching was Aramaic, or the people would not have understood, hence He would have not spoken The Sacred Name in Hebrew, but the Aramaic equivalent "Marya".

"Marya" is not simply "Mara". It is more; it is like many compound names in Aramaic: "Elya" (Elijah), "Uurmya" (Jeremiah), "Eshaya" (Isaiah) , Zkarya (Zechariah), etc., all of which end with ?ya? and come from Hebrew names ending with ?YAH?- the Hebrew abbreviated form of YHWH. The distinctive feature of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] is that it is not a name ever applied to a human before Yeshua Netsari, but used only of YHWH in the Aramaic language.
?Marya? then = ?Mar YAH? (Aramaic has ?YAH? also in the Peshitta OT., but compound names use YA as an ending instead.)

Blessings,

Dave
I have lost track of what the latest claim for MarYah is, but does it reconcile with the matter of Yeshua being called MarYah in the New Testament? For example, in John 8:11 and Revelation 22:20.

And does it reconcile with the two instances in Matthew 22:43-45 where MarYah is not used in reference to YHWH, but instead to David's "my lord".

Originally, it seemed likely to me that the reference being used for YHWH (maur:yau`) was a unique designate for YHWH, but I found that I couldn't reconcile it with those instances. So instead, I have settled for (maur:yau`) being just a grammatical nuance to (maurau`), maybe turning it into a type of a denominative emphatic. One that works so far, along with a few others, is "that of Lord", with (maurau`) being just "the Lord".
As far as I know, both of those references you gave, namely of John and Revelation are both from the Peshitto translation and can't be reliably used to prove anything.
If so, then neither can the Peshitta OT Tanakh be reliably used to prove anything, for it is a translation. Try instead then Luke 2:11, where the new born baby Yeshua is called:

"maur:yau` the-Anointed"

And Matthew 22:43-45 remains as well. It is not coherent if one uses a unique designate for YHWH.
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Jeremy,

Sorry for confusing you with someone else. I think it was Justalex.
You did write this however:
Quote:i was suggesting that the AN"K's usage of the "spelling" of MARYA / MARYE' could be evidence that it should have been understood singularly, in the Aramaic, as well. of course we can't totally know, but it is interesting that the LXX chose to render it singular, instead of plural.
Here you suggest MARYE may be singular- MARYA, which is the same thing Justalex wrote of Acts 16, so I see no difference where in scripture this argument is used. The plural form is marked and voweled as plural in Isaiah as it is in Acts 16.


Jeremy Wrote:Shlama David,

thanks for replying. my reasoning for suggesting MARYE' in Isaiah could possibly be singular is because of the context of the passage, as well as the parallel passage i mentioned where YHWH called Himself ADONEEM, as well. when it comes to Acts 16, the context is clearly plural MARYE' - "masters" -- no argument from me there, so really, you should see a difference in Scripture from where the argument is used, because it must be noted by the context. yes the plural form is marked and voweled in Isaiah, i am not contesting that. my pondering, again, is merely: could the AN"K be wrong with the syame mark and vowels, as we've seen the Peshitta NT could arguably be wrong at times with the "traditional" reading of the syame / vowel marks? i'm not gun-ho one way or the other, but i truly see some room for wiggle here. our disagreement is not based on any doctrinal issue, please note. i've got no problem with calling Yeshu'a MARYA, i'm just very hesitant to demand that a word must always mean only one thing, especially when there is evidence to suggest it might possibly be understood differently.

gbausc Wrote:I wrote:
Quote:"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH.
Actually, neither Marya nor YHWH is His Name. Both are English transliterations of Hebrew and Aramaic Names. "Marya" represents the Aramaic Name [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font], which represents hwhy.
You are splitting hairs, I think, in denying Marya [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] represents YHWH hwhy, if you are insisting that the Peshitta must use the Hebrew form hwhy in order to contain God's Name. The Jews of the 1st century did not speak Hebrew in public; it was reserved for the synagogue in the reading of scripture, and even then required a Targum in Aramaic for the people to understand. Yeshua's preaching and teaching was Aramaic, or the people would not have understood, hence He would have not spoken The Sacred Name in Hebrew, but the Aramaic equivalent "Marya".

Jeremy Wrote:to be clear, i am NOT denying that Marya [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] represents YHWH. i am just not entirely convinced yet that it must always represent YHWH, so there is no splitting of hairs in a negative sense, just in a very cautious way that i think is not to be denigrated, as we're talking about the search for truth here, so caution over being dogmatic should be welcomed. also, i am NOT insisting that the Peshitta use the Hebrew form of YHWH, either. i never suggested this at all.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" is not simply "Mara". It is more; it is like many compound names in Aramaic: "Elya" (Elijah), "Uurmya" (Jeremiah), "Eshaya" (Isaiah) , Zkarya (Zechariah), etc., all of which end with ?ya? and come from Hebrew names ending with ?YAH?- the Hebrew abbreviated form of YHWH. The distinctive feature of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] is that it is not a name ever applied to a human before Yeshua Netsari, but used only of YHWH in the Aramaic language.
?Marya? then = ?Mar YAH? (Aramaic has ?YAH? also in the Peshitta OT., but compound names use YA as an ending instead.)

Blessings,

Dave

Jeremy Wrote:yes, i am fully aware of the compound nature of the way "Yah" is used in people's names in the Peshitta, but my hesitancy is in it's proposed use in Marya. i guess one piece of evidence that would really help me to decide is to see the term MAR (master) in use during first century times by itself, as i've only ever seen it used in writings from later periods. if you have access to such information, i would most happily receive it and seriously look at changing my ponderings to a more definite, conclusive position in favor of "MarYah" as is normally promoted. or if anyone else reading this has access to such material, feel free to respond.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Shlama Jeremy,

"Mara" is the Aramaic emphatic form of "Mar" and is found three times in the Hebrew Bible in Daniel 4:19,24 & 5:23.
Daniel 2:4 through 7:28 is Aramaic. Daniel was written circa 500 B.C.

"Mara" also occurs 23 times in The Peshitta NT + the Aramaic Western 5 Epistles.

Burkta lak,

Dave
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Jeremy,

"Mara" is the Aramaic emphatic form of "Mar" and is found three times in the Hebrew Bible in Daniel 4:19,24 & 5:23.
Daniel 2:4 through 7:28 is Aramaic. Daniel was written circa 500 B.C.

"Mara" also occurs 23 times in The Peshitta NT + the Aramaic Western 5 Epistles.

Burkta lak,

Dave


Shlama David,


ah, MARA yes -- which is also found in Daniel 2:47, to add to the list -- i know this term and have no problem with it. but your reply fails to meet what i'm specifically asking for:

MARA, from all the lexicons and dictionaries with which i am familiar, is a root word itself, and does not stem from MAR, which would mean "bitter / sour," right? i know that LATER the term MAR began to be used for "Master / Lord" and this DOES come from MARA, but i've only seen it in later writings. i've not seen it in use during anything from the first century, or before. that is the evidence i am looking for which would seriously begin to make me rethink things.

as it stands, the fact that none of the lexicons or dictionary aides (of which i am aware -- if one exists to the contrary, i'm game for being educated) substantiate that MARA comes from the root MAR precludes me from accepting the compound structure of MarYah as being legitimate at the time.

but if the converse is true, then are we to say that Kiraz, Jennings, Payne-Smith, Silver, Lindgren, etc, are in error, as well?

as a student of Scripture and a pursuer of truth, i'm sure you can agree that such claims need to be substantiated before promoting them, and from what i've seen so far, no scholarly works support the linguistic proposal of MarYah.

so again, there is no ulterior motive for disagreement here: i just need the linguistic evidence before i support a claim that Marya must be understood as the compound Mar-Yah.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Quote:as a student of Scripture and a pursuer of truth, i'm sure you can agree that such claims need to be substantiated before promoting them, and from what i've seen so far, no scholarly works support the linguistic proposal of MarYah.

I was really looking forward to seeing some of evidences that would substantiate this as well...

justalex
I recently came across Etheridge's understanding regarding, as he calls it, Morio:
Etheridge Wrote:The old Syriac Version for Yehovah employs the title Morio, "the Lord." The Syrians considered this name with its four letters M.R.I.A. to correspond with the Hebrew Tetragram, YHWH; and the letters themselves as the initials of words symbolical of the Divine Nature; the first, m, standing for morutho, "dominion;" the second, r, for rabbutho, "majesty," or "greatness;" the third and fourth, i, a, for aithutho, "essential being." Morio, "The Lord," is distinguished from the common form of Mar, "a lord," and is never used but as an appellation of the Deity.
Here's a link to that specific page: The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, Volume 2, p. 10.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15