Peshitta Forum

Full Version: The Messiah IS YHWH ---> Proven
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
Oh no, here we go with this discussion again. Texas Rat, from where did you cut and paste this uneducated diatribe?
Paul,

My B <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush --> ad!!!
My question is this....in the Aramaic Tanakh, was there a distinction between MARYA and any other type of the form "master" CONSISTENTLY? If the Peshitta OT translated YHWH into MARYA supposedly thousands of times, how did it translate with "adonai" every time?

And I dont think anybody disagrees with the fact that MARYA is not equal to the actual name of YHWH, its a known cover up/replacement...but as long as we see the pattern that its translations follow, we know to THINK YHWH when we see the word, irregardless.

Unless the word "adonai" is being constantly (or at least more than once) translated as MARYA as well.
But before I got distracted, what I REALLY was gonna bring up is...if everybody is supporting that the closest-to- original-NT only has 22 books, then why praise the AENT so much, knowing the Western 5 is added?

Fear of the curse of taking from the Word?

I no longer believe I should have crossed out 1 John 5:7 from my Bible, nor should I have considered questioning the Western 5 in my mind at any point, because these things dont take away from the meaning of the word. (The father, son, and spirit ARE one, did the gospels not already tell you that? The addition of the word "three" is just meant to indicate three identies, or what I think to be more precise, three subjects of thought at hand)

And without at least Revelation, the Bible certainly wouldnt seem as complete compared to us having it (Though without it, the message still survives loud and clear and has all of what we need to be saved.

So it all comes to faith, I suppose...if the Western 5 and 1john 5:7 was so sketchy, why did it survive in all the most popular forms of the Bible today?

*******Note-Im still, however, really confused about the Pericope Adulterae because in THIS particular verse, there does appear to be a contradiction in what YHWH previously commanded which thus in my mind "takes away from the word" and causes damage to my spiritual trust.********
rungold315 Wrote:But before I got distracted, what I REALLY was gonna bring up is...if everybody is supporting that the closest-to- original-NT only has 22 books, then why praise the AENT so much, knowing the Western 5 is added?

Fear of the curse of taking from the Word?

I no longer believe I should have crossed out 1 John 5:7 from my Bible, nor should I have considered questioning the Western 5 in my mind at any point, because these things dont take away from the meaning of the word. (The father, son, and spirit ARE one, did the gospels not already tell you that? The addition of the word "three" is just meant to indicate three identies, or what I think to be more precise, three subjects of thought at hand)

And without at least Revelation, the Bible certainly wouldnt seem as complete compared to us having it (Though without it, the message still survives loud and clear and has all of what we need to be saved.

So it all comes to faith, I suppose...if the Western 5 and 1john 5:7 was so sketchy, why did it survive in all the most popular forms of the Bible today?

*******Note-Im still, however, really confused about the Pericope Adulterae because in THIS particular verse, there does appear to be a contradiction in what YHWH previously commanded which thus in my mind "takes away from the word" and causes damage to my spiritual trust.********

My limited understanding is that while the 22 books were given origingally, the 5 MAY be authentic but were merely received later. That and from what I am aware, if not "sacred scripture", they are considered similar to the Minor Prophets of the TaNaK as some consider it. Not as "Inspired" but useful all the same so included. I personally do make that distinction. The 22 are Inspired, the other 5 are useful. I see no issue with them in that light.

As for 1John 5:7, I personally reject it as authentic, but always have even before I ever heard of the PeshittA/O. The Pericope Adulterae has always been questionable and I am fine with it being rejected although my faith is not dependent on it one way or another.

To answer your question as to why they survived... (again going with my limited understanding, someone correct me if I am wrong) the East received the 22 and considered it "case-closed" so-to-speak. The West was more open (for better or worse) to receive other books at a later time (or perhaps they were in the right place to receive them immediately... and then debate their authenticity/canonicity over the centuries). As for 1John 5:7, I believe it cannot be found in the main text of any documents until the 14th or 15th century. Before then, it COULD be found as a marginal note in documents dating from the 10th century. (again, I am open to reasonable correction on this point). A site which has a for/against position regarding this is http://www.godglorified.com/1_john_57.htm which is against, and http://www.godglorified.com/edward_hill.htm which is for it. I find the against FAR more persuasive and likely. Mind you, these are not Aramaic Primacy sites, but all else I feel is right on.
All in all, much of the survival I think has to do with the curse of taking away from the Word as you mentioned. That and for so long, the most (in)famous KJV, and the older Vulgate had it and well... we know how the early Western Church felt about questioning the Bible. Since then, some traditions are hard to break.
The Texas RAT Wrote:...or that I have totally missed the boat as to why marya was used to refer to Phillip in YawHu-Khawnawn [John] 12:21 please be address these and please be a little more specific than just a short quip, while some what humerous, they availith me nothing.

Shlama Texas RAT,

John 12:21 does *not* have Marya for Phillip - it has "Mari" (mar-ee) which is singular possessive ("my mar", "my lord"). It's like saying "my lord" to an English prince or king. Wives call their husbands this all the time.

Marya is altogether a different word.

We've had this discussion/debate ad nauseum on this board. Every time I think it's settled, it rears its ugly head again. Hence my frustration.

You must've copied this text from somewhere on the internet, or if you did make it yourself please reconsider before posting such things if you don't know the basics of the language.

+Shamasha
PM Saunders Wrote:
rungold315 Wrote:To answer your question as to why they survived... (again going with my limited understanding, someone correct me if I am wrong) the East received the 22 and considered it "case-closed" so-to-speak. The West was more open (for better or worse) to receive other books at a later time (or perhaps they were in the right place to receive them immediately... and then debate their authenticity/canonicity over the centuries).

Another important thing to consider about the eastern tradition: it's not as if we treat all of the 22 books as equal, either. Really, in the modern Western Evangelical milieu is where we find a strong idea of "canon" and "inspiration", within the Church of the East in particular - the Gospels are the most revered of the new testament writings. Followed by the Acts of the Apostles, and then the Pauline and "Catholic" Epistles. In other words, the Gospels rank higher on our "importance" scale. In fact, in printed editions used during the liturgy ... there are different books which contain the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

This is similar to our Jewish background. The books of Moses are far more important in the synagogue setting than say one of the minor prophets.
Paul Younan Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:...or that I have totally missed the boat as to why marya was used to refer to Phillip in YawHu-Khawnawn [John] 12:21 please be address these and please be a little more specific than just a short quip, while some what humerous, they availith me nothing.

Shlama Texas RAT,

John 12:21 does *not* have Marya for Phillip - it has "Mari" (mar-ee) which is singular possessive ("my mar", "my lord"). Marya is altogether a different word.

We've had this discussion/debate ad nauseum on this board. Every time I think it's settled, it rears its ugly head again. Hence my frustration.

You must've copied this text from somewhere on the internet, or if you did make it yourself please reconsider before posting such things if you don't know the basics of the language.

+Shamasha

I would like to confirm what Paul says here. In looking in the AENT, the word used for "Master" in the AENT 4th. John 12:21, shows in the aramaic transliteration yrm and as I show in my list above, the words understood to be "Master YHWH" are ayrm, ayrmd, aryml, ayrmld, ayrmb and ayrmw or MarYah, D'MarYah, L'MarYah, D'L'MarYah, B'MarYah and W'MarYah. The difference being that all forms of MarYah having the ending "aleph" while Mari does not. You do not have to take my word for it though, if you look at the Khabouris Codex you can verify this for yourself. Am I saying this will change your mind as to the meaning of MarYah, no. But this should show you that your example does not apply as you asked for specifics. I hope this helps. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Paul Younan Wrote:
PM Saunders Wrote:
rungold315 Wrote:To answer your question as to why they survived... (again going with my limited understanding, someone correct me if I am wrong) the East received the 22 and considered it "case-closed" so-to-speak. The West was more open (for better or worse) to receive other books at a later time (or perhaps they were in the right place to receive them immediately... and then debate their authenticity/canonicity over the centuries).

Another important thing to consider about the eastern tradition: it's not as if we treat all of the 22 books as equal, either. Really, in the modern Western Evangelical milieu is where we find a strong idea of "canon" and "inspiration", within the Church of the East in particular - the Gospels are the most revered of the new testament writings. Followed by the Acts of the Apostles, and then the Pauline and "Catholic" Epistles. In other words, the Gospels rank higher on our "importance" scale. In fact, in printed editions used during the liturgy ... there are different books which contain the Gospels, Acts and Epistles.

This is similar to our Jewish background. The books of Moses are far more important in the synagogue setting than say one of the minor prophets.

You said this so much better than me all though the last things you said is basically what I was hoping to get across. Yay! I feel like I actually know what I am talking about!!! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
To further clarify concerning John 12:21...
Using Paul Younan's version of John in the Peshitta, here is the verse you mention. I underlined and colored red the word Mari which is translated as "Master". In the same chapter in verse 38, both Mari AND D'MarYah are used showing the clear difference, D'MarYah being underlined and in blue. I show this to bring forth the (what I believe to be) evidence that MarYah was not used in reference to Philip and continues to be be used in reference to Father YHWH.

John 12:21 P Younan: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"](w4yl 0zxn Nnx Nybc Yrm hl Nyrm0w Yhwl04w fylgd 0dyctyb Nmd wh Swpylyp twl wbrq wt0 Nylh[/font]
John 12:21 AENT 4th: These came and drew near to Peleepos, he who was from Beth-Sayda of Galeela, and asked him and said to him, "My Master, we desire to see Y'shua."


John 12:38 P Younan: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Ylgt0 Nml 0yrmd h9rdw N9m4l Nmyh wnm Yrm rm0d 0ybn 0y940d Flm fmttd[/font]
John 12:38 AENT 4th: That would be fulfilled the word of Yesha'yahu the prophet who said, "My Master who will believe our report and to whom has been revealed the arm of YHWH?"

Hope this helps some.
Never in the NT we meet name YHWH.
Marya is just title.
Father is father, son is son.
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Never in the NT we meet name YHWH.
Marya is just title.
Father is father, son is son.

Precisely. YHWH is a proper name in Hebrew. Marya is a title in Aramaic. It is a title used for YHWH only.

It is not used for pagan deities, nor for human beings...ever.

+Shamasha
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Never in the NT we meet name YHWH.
Marya is just title.
Father is father, son is son.

I actually SOMEWHAT agree with you. You will never find the name YHWH in the NT. You find a word that was used in place of it when YHWH was intended. Which happens to be MarYah... the entire purpose of this 3 page thread. Which is what all 192 instances of the Peshitta show, what all 215 instances of the Peshitto show. As one thread said (I cannot recall which at the moment) it is a compound word used as a place holder for YHWH. Similar to how the Jews changed YHWH to Adonai when speaking the name. The difference is that the replacement word was written and formed from a compound of the word for Master and a shortened form of YHWH, being Yah. So in a sense, you are absolutely correct. The name YHWH is NOWHERE in the NT. MarYah... Master Yah (short for YHWH) is. At least 192 times. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
PM Saunders Wrote:You said this so much better than me all though the last things you said is basically what I was hoping to get across. Yay! I feel like I actually know what I am talking about!!! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

This whole 2?-book inspired canon thing is quite a foreign concept to the eastern mind.

In our tradition we have the Gospels, Acts and Epistles. In that order, just like we have the Torah, Neviim and Kethubim of the Jewish synagogue.

In our "canon", if we must refer to one, we have in the beginning the Gospel of Matthew which was written to the Hebrew nation. And at the end we have the Epistle to the Hebrews which was also written to the Hebrew nation. So in the beginning and in the end the message was directed to His people as He promised in the prophets and while He was among us....and this prophecy was fulfilled and the ministry to them complete.

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:
PM Saunders Wrote:You said this so much better than me all though the last things you said is basically what I was hoping to get across. Yay! I feel like I actually know what I am talking about!!! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

This whole 2?-book inspired canon thing is quite a foreign concept to the eastern mind.

In our tradition we have the Gospels, Acts and Epistles. In that order, just like we have the Torah, Neviim and Kethubim of the Jewish synagogue.

In our "canon", if we must refer to one, we have in the beginning the Gospel of Matthew which was written to the Hebrew nation. And at the end we have the Epistle to the Hebrews which was also written to the Hebrew nation. So in the beginning and in the end the message was directed to His people as He promised in the prophets and while He was among us....and this prophecy was fulfilled and the ministry to them complete.

+Shamasha

I understand what you mean. I am still coming out of a typical Western way of Christian thinking. Much of the terminology and thought patterns are still there in me. I "know" and actually agree with the Eastern way of viewing the scriptures often make the mistake of falling back on old habits. I still have complete agreement with you. You are just better explaining it than I. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> My apologies for muddying up the points I was attempting (but failing) to get across. <!-- sBlush --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/blush.gif" alt="Blush" title="Blush" /><!-- sBlush -->
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6