Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Christ
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Oh hello there. I just wanted to tell people here a bit about myself. Stay awake please, thank you.

I guess I am not a 'Christian' in the factionalist sense, as I am not very keen on labels of this sort in general. In any case I don't recall Christ using this label. However, I do believe that the message of Christ was inspired by God and provides a good teaching for humans to follow with it emphasis on showing mercy, yet still adhering to the principles found in the instructions of Moshe.

So my main focus is on the sayings of Christ and his actual teaching. The narrative parts don't really interest me that much because we can all see that different writers are writing from different viewpoint based on their conception of Christ. What is important for us is his teaching that is inpsired through the higher power. And I use this site because I like to compare the words he said with the Greek version and come to a satisfactory conclusion on what he meant. What particularly intrigued me was the alternative interpretation of the 'eye of the needle' metaphor. The Semetic gamlo, as well as the Arabic equivalent jamal [I know some Arabic words from my work] , can be understood as a thick twisted rope and not just a camel, which fits the context better.

As for the various letters there are some interesting insights provided in them as to what Paul of Tarsus sought to do, and what is interpretation of Christ's teaching was. Whereas I don't think they are inspired by God I still think they provide an interesting ideological and historical insight.

So those are my thoughts anyway. I think it is very interesting to compare both sets of texts and this debate on which is 'prime' will go on and on. I also feel that the Peshitta Tanakh is rather undervalued because after all it is a translation from an early 'Hebrew' text [apparently] and it is perfectly possible that the early figures of humanity spoke what we label as 'Aramaic'. I think more time should be devoted to this as well and not just the evangel. I emailed Mr Thad about this and he appeared to agree [I think].


With a little imagination, the 4 Gospels can be harmonised <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

And POT wipes the floor with Massoretic in many places liek Ahaziah's age. All are useful, POT, LXX, Massoretic etc, because we do not know where the Hebrew original is.


Yeah I think you're right Chris sport, mate etc. Thats why I like the Diatessaron. I like the order of it and the doing away with the genealogies and focussing more on the man. I think it is possible to compose a harmony of Christ's sayings following the Diatessaron format which can be read as a single set of wise sayings from the Maran.
If you want strickly sayings, look into the Gospel of Thomas <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w --> and the various others like the aprochyn of james and john and the book of Thomas...more sayings!

Some, you shall find are the same as in the NT Gospels <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

Shlama Akhi Goy,
Quote:As for the various letters there are some interesting insights provided in them as to what Paul of Tarsus sought to do
Your only problem is that both Paul and Peter viewed Paul's epistles as inspired and binding. Peter admitted that they are hard to follow given the mystic nature of Pauls' Rabbinic training, but that can be cleared up by Paul's own statements in the book of Acts.

Akhi Andrew has his own article on this subject from his websiteSad<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->).
Peace brother Rob

I see what you are saying, but it is the actual teaching of the Messiah himself, from his own mouth, that interests me. I think that Paul's letters are one interpretation of what he said, but not the final word of God. It was God who inspired the Messiah and he spoke which I hold to be prime. But of course, as with any text, it can be interpreted in so many ways so as to mean different things to different people <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> !
And believe me I know as I have seen judges interpreting one single piece of legislation so differently between each other! We already have some people saying that the Messiah cancels the Towreh out, and others who say he in fact actively endorses it!

But I am keen on the harmony idea though. One single Diatessaronic style gospel is definitely the way to go. Think about it - you read one gospel i.e. Matt, then come to the end. Then you start all over again from the beginning to read Mark, etc etc. One continous flow is a lot more logical and I reckon Tatian did a good job in harmonizing parallels. What do you guys think?
Akhi Gentile,

Do you accept what Jesus said about himself in John's Gospel - chapters 3 through 17 ? I am curious as to how your interpretation of the Gospel of John would differ from Paul's or Peter's.

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fkrwb[/font]

Dave B
Quote:We already have some people saying that the Messiah cancels the Towreh out, and others who say he in fact actively endorses it!
Check out this website: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> In short, why was Galatia so judaized when they were not even Jewish?

I will agree with one aspect of your revision; that being that Paul's epistles do have a narrow context as well as a broader context. We can't ignore them because of this though. They give a general moral directive even though they had a context of their own.