Peshitta Forum

Full Version: The state of the departed
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Although AGR's AENT is full of interest it also has error in my view. For example when I die I expect to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8. This scripture does not take in the later resurrection of the body which is to be in the last day according to John 6:40. Not that I understand why but note 88 page 250 of the AENT seems to be wrong. How and when the supper feast of the lamb occur and when and how the judgement seat of Mashiach occurs I also do not pretend to know. I personally think that AGR is wrong to reduce (Rav (Rabbie?) is like our Rev I presume - a knock down) Paul's teaching concerning the Rapture to a "Rapture theory". It is true that the rapture has not happened yet because the man of sin has not yet been revealed and has not yet sat down in the Temple of God saying that he is God. The temple has not yet been rebuilt. If the Middle East conflict is resolved amicably it could be rebuilt, but again I do not claim to understand.
Aldred
Aldred, I know what it is like to believe something because we trust our pasters to teach us the truths of Scripture, even though we ourselve have not done an indepth study on certain issues. I used to say I think this and that based on what the so-called party line had taught me over the years.

And being Rav Shaul commended the Bereians as being far more noble than others for double checking Scripture to see if what he taught was true, I would encourage you to use a Scripture study program (such as eSword or Blue letter Bile) to search the Tanak of all verses speaking on death/the dead/etc.. to see if Roth's veiws contridict them like a wayward cammel criss crossed in her ways or not. I beleive through good Scripture Exegesis you will be ammazed at how much of traditional christianity is like unto the wayward cammel more so than Roth's teachings.

TWO APPROACHES IN UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE

FIRST: One goes to the Writings with an open, unbiased attitude, free of denominational slants or teachings, or previous impressions. This is called Exegesis (direct analysis or interpretation of Scripture). Allowing the Word to directly speak to form a solid foundation through personal study. Listening to other men teach us what Scripture says is fine also, as long as we test everything we hear, being careful how we listen, as the assembly at Berea did (see: Acts 17:10,11).

SECOND: (the wrong approach) -- One goes to the Writings to prove something they already believe, finding sentences which hint at the idea. This is called Eisegesis (analyzing from one's own preconceived ideas). In these cases the text is not directly describing or teaching the concept they are trying to prove, but rather the words are extracted and hunted-down, to "prove" what they believe. This is how men "twist" or "spin" the Words of Scripture, especially the letters of Shaul [Saul ] (a.k.a. - Powlos [ Paul ]):
". . . as also our beloved brother Powlos wrote to you,
according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters,
speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand,
which those who are untaught and unstable TWIST (re-spin) to their own destruction,
as they do also the other Scriptures [such they do with the Old Covenant Scriptures as well].
You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch;
lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the delusion of theTorahless." - {2 Kayf [Peter] 3:15-17}

Remember if what we think the ReNewed Covenant is saying contridicts what the Old Covenant Scriptures say then we truly have missunderstood the ReNewed Covenant.
2 Peter 3:17
I see you are a Torah "zealot" as AGR because of the use of the word torahless in the above scripture! I have now enough reason to reject the AENT because it is not a faithful translation but has been proved to plagiarize other translators work. I do not now refer to the AENT as it has errors, but you could let me know what word the Aramaic uses for "torahless". This is an "invented" word in English. Does the invented word illuminate the meaning of the Aramaic? Darby Translates from the Greek - being led away along with the error of the WICKED, ye should fall from your own steadfastness:

Aldred
2 Peter 3:17
I see you are a Torah "zealot" as AGR because of the use of the word torahless in the above scripture! I have now enough reason to reject the AENT because it is not a faithful translation but has been proved to plagiarize other translators work. I do not now refer to the AENT as it has errors, but you could let me know what word the Aramaic uses for "torahless". This is an "invented" word in English. Does the invented word illuminate the meaning of the Aramaic? Darby Translates from the Greek - being led away along with the error of the WICKED, ye should fall from your own steadfastness:

Aldred
Aldred Emmans Wrote:2 Peter 3:17
I see you are a Torah "zealot" as AGR because of the use of the word torahless in the above scripture!
zeal?ot
noun
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=zealot&oq=zealot&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=2&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/search?q=zealot& ... 2&ie=UTF-8</a><!-- m -->

Aldred, if you paid attention to what I had posted you would see that I had changed my mind on what I had believed once I weighed the evidence, so calling me a zealot does not fit by definition. Yet it is my understanding that true zealots repond with name calling rather than with a reasonable debate. This is because zealots do not have good evidence for their beliefs. On the other hand I do fit some synonyms for a zealot such as "enthusiast" and "true believer", at least in my opinion.


Aldred Emmans Wrote:I have now enough reason to reject the AENT because it is not a faithful translation but has been proved to plagiarize other translators work.
Personally, I choose not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Being the work was basically built by two quilified Aramaic sholars, and only lightly edited by one of whom plagerised them, I see much good in it still. But I, as you, do not condone Roth pretending that he is a translater, nor his false claims of the 1000s of sholarly people that supposedly helped him edited it.


Aldred Emmans Wrote:I do not now refer to the AENT as it has errors,
As the evidence that you speak of will show the errors in the AENT are those made by the original translaters and have remained in the AENT due to poor editing on the part of AGR. What I am trying to say here is that yes there are errors in the version, all the while by no means could it be called a translation.


Aldred Emmans Wrote:but you could let me know what word the Aramaic uses for "torahless". This is an "invented" word in English. Does the invented word illuminate the meaning of the Aramaic? Darby Translates from the Greek - being led away along with the error of the WICKED, ye should fall from your own steadfastness:

Aldred
As for the wording in 2nd Kefa that I had used the English term "Torahless" for, being the Aramaic texts thereof are translations from Greek texts, I would think it best to see what the Greek wording is (but as far as I have seen in all English translations of the Western Aramaic texts they have translated the term as "lawless"). The Greek texts use the same word here as they did in the Septuigent where Hebrew texts use the word "Torah". And being the Hebrew word "Torah" is translated into English as either "instructions" or "law" it can be safely understood that in this verse, taking into consideration the context of the letter, it does not seem that Kefa was warning believers not to follow after "wicked heathens that follow not man's laws", yet rather the "false Scripture teachers that thaught against Torah observance". And being "lawlessness" is equalant to "Torahlessness" I felt it best to make this point clearer in this day and age as to help thwart the false teachings that Kefa and Shaul tried so hard to teach against.
Thanks for your reply.

Acts 21:20 This was what I was referring to, "all are ardent for the Torah", as indeed you are. So why do we eventually have verse 31, "And while they were seeking to kill him".

You have to ask yourself why and how did this hatred arise?

As I said before what was the problem?

Aldred
The reason they were upset and wanting to kill Sahaul was because they thought he was preaching against the Torah (Acts 21:21).
"21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Yehudim who are among the Nations to forsake Moshay, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs."

And here again they accused Shaul of teaching against the Torah, and also because they though that he took a hethen into the temple which is against the Torah (Acts 27-28).
27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, ?Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the Instruction(i.e.-Torah) and this Place. Moreover, he even brought an Aramaen into the Temple and has defiled this Consecrated Place.?

Other than that I do not understand your question.

Food for though - How many other deciples where accused of teaching against the Torah/Instructions/Law?
Brothers,

I don't think it is the very same Jews spoken of in each instance there. I don't think that it was the Jews who believed in Yeshua who tried to kill Paul that day...and who keep trying to do so for along while afterward, those were un-believing Jews, and some among them, are called "false brethren" who crept into The Assembly of the believing Jews in Messiah....and it was some of these non-believing ones who went after him all over the world trying to kill him and stop him from preaching The Gospel. They failed.

Those whom The Apostle Ya'qub were talking about, who had heard from these other non-believing Jews, that Paul was preaching against the Law... these were not the same Jews who were trying to kill him...no way... And of course he wasn't preaching against it, but was explaining the meaning for and of it, and how that The Messiah had fulfilled it, in His perfect life.

Shlama
there are 4 videosat the following URL that help show that Shaul never taught against the Torah:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nazarenespace.com/page/understanding-paul">http://nazarenespace.com/page/understanding-paul</a><!-- m -->

There is also another video that covers the subject of Shaul and what he taught at:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://nazarenespace.com/video/the-apostasy-and-restoration">http://nazarenespace.com/video/the-apos ... estoration</a><!-- m -->
No, he didn't teach against it, he taught rightly about it, and it pissed legalistic types off real bad, enough to break the Torah they were so zealous to "keep", at least they thought they were keeping it. Both Messiah and the Apostle Paul exposed them as phonies, while showing what really was the case.

Today, much of the law of Moses isn't practiced at all, nor can be, by anyone...even by those who say they "keep Torah", and even the strictest sect of the Jews. And while those who believe in Yeshua say they do, what they really mean is, they keep what they are able to keep of it, and what would apply to them today, under The Better Covenant.

No one today really "keeps Torah", as it existed in the 1st century...or even are able to for that matter, while much of it is no longer valid, since Messiah has made the final sin offering, as The Lamb of God, and fulfilled all the types and shadows.

.
Aramaic Wrote:Today, much of the law of Moses isn't practiced at all, nor can be, by anyone...even by those who say they "keep Torah", and even the strictest sect of the Jews. And while those who believe in Yeshua say they do, what they really mean is, they keep what they are able to keep of it, and what would apply to them today, under The Better Covenant.

No one today really "keeps Torah", as it existed in the 1st century...or even are able to for that matter, while much of it is no longer valid, since Messiah has made the final sin offering, as The Lamb of God, and fulfilled all the types and shadows.
I disagree. Not one letter or stroke shall pass from the Torah until ALL has been fulfilled. Has sin and death been thrown into the lake of fire? No. We still sin, we still die. Do we no longer say to our neighbour "Know the LORD" because everyone knows the LORD? No, we still evangelize. Has Christ drank the final cup as He sits with us in His Father's kingdom? Nope!

Yes, we are looking towards that new and better covenant, which is being birthed within us (the Kingdom starts from within), but that covenant is yet to manifest itself in reality in it's fullness. And until that time, everything still applies if we are able to keep it within our conditions. Without a temple, of course we cannot keep giving sacrifices (which had nothing to do with removing sin and cleansing us spiritually so we can enter into eternal life), but if there was a temple they would rightfully be given. But as you say, we keep what we can, and if it draws us and others closer to God, deepening our knowledge of Christ (in the sense of KNOWing Him - yada) then we are doing it right. If it's not, then we're doing it wrong. Christians may avoid anything that seems Jewish, but on average they still keep about 2/3 of applicable Torah if they're walking according to the Spirit. But we all still fall short and stumble here and there because we still live in this world, and not in the world to come where Torah will be written on our hearts and we will ACTUALLY never sin again.

But yeah, just my two shekels <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Aramaic Wrote:Today, much of the law of Moses isn't practiced at all, nor can be, by anyone...even by those who say they "keep Torah", and even the strictest sect of the Jews. And while those who believe in Yeshua say they do, what they really mean is, they keep what they are able to keep of it, and what would apply to them today, under The Better Covenant.

No one today really "keeps Torah", as it existed in the 1st century...or even are able to for that matter, while much of it is no longer valid, since Messiah has made the final sin offering, as The Lamb of God, and fulfilled all the types and shadows.
I disagree. Not one letter or stroke shall pass from the Torah until ALL has been fulfilled. Has sin and death been thrown into the lake of fire? No. We still sin, we still die. Do we no longer say to our neighbour "Know the LORD" because everyone knows the LORD? No, we still evangelize. Has Christ drank the final cup as He sits with us in His Father's kingdom? Nope!

Yes, we are looking towards that new and better covenant, which is being birthed within us (the Kingdom starts from within), but that covenant is yet to manifest itself in reality in it's fullness. And until that time, everything still applies if we are able to keep it within our conditions. Without a temple, of course we cannot keep giving sacrifices (which had nothing to do with removing sin and cleansing us spiritually so we can enter into eternal life), but if there was a temple they would rightfully be given. But as you say, we keep what we can, and if it draws us and others closer to God, deepening our knowledge of Christ (in the sense of KNOWing Him - yada) then we are doing it right. If it's not, then we're doing it wrong. Christians may avoid anything that seems Jewish, but on average they still keep about 2/3 of applicable Torah if they're walking according to the Spirit. But we all still fall short and stumble here and there because we still live in this world, and not in the world to come where Torah will be written on our hearts and we will ACTUALLY never sin again.

But yeah, just my two shekels <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
I'd sell every thing I got to walk according to them two shekels worth, good stuff.
The Texas Rat
Dear Brother
I clicked on the first of your links and listened to the Rabbi teaching on Romans 1 - 4. I agreed 100% with the teaching so I am now a Natzareh member. I have not yet read the above post but it occurs to me the poster should remember that the renewed covenant includes healing. This is based on "Your sins are forgiven" So the Paralytic took up his bed and walked. More of that please Lord.
Now its interesting that those who would kill Paul for his teaching (see video on Romans 1-4 above) had a point. My four sons have not been circumsized. Is this because of the first church council in Acts where the Goyeem were not required to keep Torah for purposes of Salvation. Or is it because my sons may be expected to ask for circumcision if they think their dad did not bring them up properly?
Buy the buy I was amazed over the HS copyright conflict of which I became enlightened after becoming a Natzareen member after making the link! Darkness is not the same as light!
Hallelujah Scriptures HS is the plagiorized version of "The Scriptures" version. Even so I still don't understand why my HS bible has no references. Was it a translation from the Greek in the NT or from the Peshitta or what?
I am indebted to the Texas Rat. But not to the AENT for denying the rapture in the notes!
Aldred
Brother Aldred,
know you own me nothing, but rather our Adon and Savior Yehoshua of whom does His best to lead us toward His Father YHWH.

The HS version it is based off the Greek texts as is the The Scripture version.
Aldred Emmans Wrote:The Texas Rat
I am indebted to the Texas Rat. But not to the AENT for denying the rapture in the notes!
As far as I understand, Roth is just not pre-trib rapture, which is a relatively new theology in and of itself. He still believes in a catching up of Believers at the return of Mashiach where the dead in Messiah rise first and whoever is still around at that is caught up with them. The point is when this happens, and if Christians get a free ride from any hardship in the last days (and a quick look at Christians in the middle east RIGHT NOW will clearly answer that question).
Pages: 1 2