Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luqa 2:52
#1
I just have one question... I was at a service on this past week and the minister used Luqa 2:52 in it...

I know that yu guys say YAHUshuah(if you don't agree with my spelling that's fine) is YHWH... However how would He "gain favour with Elohiym and man"???

I don't know how the Aramaic reads so I won't even try that... however the AENT reads the same as the standard KJV and Geneva...

I'll check back later to see if anyone has any ideas on this...

ShEMA YISRAEL YHWH ELOHEYNU YHWH| EChAD

justalex
Reply
#2
justalex Wrote:I just have one question... I was at a service on this past week and the minister used Luqa 2:52 in it...

I know that yu guys say YAHUshuahis YHWH...

I don't say that.
Why would it be impossible to grow in favor with god and the people for Yeshu?
Reply
#3
The Aramaic can be understood as 'and in pleasantness toward Elohim and man,' more loosely, 'and was pleasing to both Elohim and man.' The root here is teth-alef-beth, the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew root teth-waw-beth which means 'good.' Also see the differences between teth-alef-beth and teth-waw-beth as defined in Strong's (H2868 and H2895, respectively).
Reply
#4
distazo Wrote:
justalex Wrote:I just have one question... I was at a service on this past week and the minister used Luqa 2:52 in it...

I know that yu guys say YAHUshuahis YHWH...

I don't say that.
Why would it be impossible to grow in favor with god and the people for Yeshu?


My apologies if you don't say that as I didn't mean to unnecessarily include everyone in my statement... I based my question from the the ideology that "some" perhaps not all, say that YAHUshuah is the same as the Aramaic marya(h?)... If you don't follow such the question wouldn't apply to you at all...

However if, you do say that The Son and the Father are one and the same the question would apply as would cannot grow in favour to oneself... can they???

justalex
Reply
#5
Aaron S Wrote:The Aramaic can be understood as 'and in pleasantness toward Elohim and man,' more loosely, 'and was pleasing to both Elohim and man.' The root here is teth-alef-beth, the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew root teth-waw-beth which means 'good.' Also see the differences between teth-alef-beth and teth-waw-beth as defined in Strong's (H2868 and H2895, respectively).

Thank you for your reply however you didn't answer the question... The differences between "favour" and "pleasing" isn't the question but rather how one could become "pleasing" or "gain favour" with oneself??? Of course again, this only applies if you hold that YAHUshuah and marya(h?) are one and the same...

justalex
Reply
#6
justalex Wrote:Thank you for your reply however you didn't answer the question... The differences between "favour" and "pleasing" isn't the question but rather how one could become "pleasing" or "gain favour" with oneself??? Of course again, this only applies if you hold that YAHUshuah and marya(h?) are one and the same...

The discussion if Yeshu = YHWH is not directly the same discussion if Yeshu = god (or God)
Reply
#7
I don't know where YAHUshuah is derived from. It does not appear in either the Hebrew OT or the Aramaic NT.

Regarding Luke 2:52, the Aramaic word in question, tay`buw-thah, is commonly translated as "grace". Of the four translations on the Dukhrana website, only Murdock picked that up in his translation. I don't know if "grace" is the best word to use or not, but if it is appropriate to use, then it might read to the effect of:

Yeshua then growing he was in his stature, and in his wisdom; and in a grace toward Alahah, and the sons of man.

I'm not sure, but it might be that "graciousness" is the better usage in lieu of "grace".
Reply
#8
Rafa Wrote:
distazo Wrote:
justalex Wrote:Thank you for your reply however you didn't answer the question... The differences between "favour" and "pleasing" isn't the question but rather how one could become "pleasing" or "gain favour" with oneself??? Of course again, this only applies if you hold that YAHUshuah and marya(h?) are one and the same...

The discussion if Yeshu = YHWH is not directly the same discussion if Yeshu = god (or God)

I believe most Aramaic Scholars would disagree with that assertion. The Assyrian Church of the East already declared that the Messiah is in fact YHWH/God (the human qnuma apart in one person with the Divine Qnuma of the Son- which is YHWH the Most Holy Trinity since none of the Divine Qnume can be taken apart from each other and the most Holy Trinity is one God).

The catholic church also confesses the trinity. I was not aware of specific assyrian differences about the subject, but for trinity, you don't have to have the name YHWH included in the dogma.

The question is simple: If Yeshu was God, how can he gain favor/grace with God?
The answer is in colossians 1:15. Yeshu was -created- firstborn by God. Because he is the son, he also is God, but not the almighty God himself.

At least, this is my understanding of the subject. If anyone thinks otherwise, peace to him/her <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The question raises: is YHWH THE almighty God, or was Yeshu YHWH himself? I'll leave it to others to comment <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#9
distazo Wrote:
justalex Wrote:Thank you for your reply however you didn't answer the question... The differences between "favour" and "pleasing" isn't the question but rather how one could become "pleasing" or "gain favour" with oneself??? Of course again, this only applies if you hold that YAHUshuah and marya(h?) are one and the same...

The discussion if Yeshu = YHWH is not directly the same discussion if Yeshu = god (or God)

Ok... am I to take from your statement that there is more than one CREATOR??? The katub mentions that that are man FALSE "elohey" however their is is only ONE YHWH ELOHIYM... which is why I ask the question about Luqa 2:52... How could YAHUshuah gain favour in the sight of ELOHIYM and man???

justalex
Reply
#10
Jerry Wrote:I don't know where YAHUshuah is derived from. It does not appear in either the Hebrew OT or the Aramaic NT.

Regarding Luke 2:52, the Aramaic word in question, tay`buw-thah, is commonly translated as "grace". Of the four translations on the Dukhrana website, only Murdock picked that up in his translation. I don't know if "grace" is the best word to use or not, but if it is appropriate to use, then it might read to the effect of:

Yeshua then growing he was in his stature, and in his wisdom; and in a grace toward Alahah, and the sons of man.

I'm not sure, but it might be that "graciousness" is the better usage in lieu of "grace".


Well, I'm not really concerned with whether or not you agree with the rendering of YAHUshuah any more than I concern myself with the added "h" to the Aramaic "marya"... that is really irrelevant to the question posed...

And in your reply you didn't answer the question of "how" YAHUshuah "gained favour with ELOHIYM and man" if He is ELOHIYM/YHWH or your in the Aramaic primacist rendering marya(h)???

Thanks

justalex
Reply
#11
Rafa Wrote:
distazo Wrote:
justalex Wrote:Thank you for your reply however you didn't answer the question... The differences between "favour" and "pleasing" isn't the question but rather how one could become "pleasing" or "gain favour" with oneself??? Of course again, this only applies if you hold that YAHUshuah and marya(h?) are one and the same...

The discussion if Yeshu = YHWH is not directly the same discussion if Yeshu = god (or God)

I believe most Aramaic Scholars would disagree with that assertion. The Assyrian Church of the East already declared that the Messiah is in fact YHWH/God (the human qnuma apart in one person with the Divine Qnuma of the Son- which is YHWH the Most Holy Trinity since none of the Divine Qnume can be taken apart from each other and the most Holy Trinity is one God).


So Rafa... how do you reconcile that The Son is The Father and "gained favour" with HIMSELF??? Your argument is the very reason that I asked my question...

Thanks,

justalex
Reply
#12
That's a good point Distazo... YAHUshauh was created first and you can find that also in Mishley 8 where He was "brought forth" by YHWH before the foundations of the world were made... (this is also shown in Yahuchanan 17:5)... However I cannot agree with your point that since He was created or firstborn that it makes Him ELOHIYM... as that is not proven in scripture... I was reading Luqa where it goes through the geneaologies and at the end it says that Adam was the "son of ELOHIYM" also... your assertion would have to include Adam as ELOHIYM since Adam was ELOHIYM's son as well wouldn't it??? (Scratching my head... lol)... ok guys this is a little deeper than I intended but hey, I love learning, LOL...

Thanks,

justalex
Reply
#13
justalex Wrote:Well, I'm not really concerned with whether or not you agree with the rendering of YAHUshuah any more than I concern myself with the added "h" to the Aramaic "marya"... that is really irrelevant to the question posed...

And in your reply you didn't answer the question of "how" YAHUshuah "gained favour with ELOHIYM and man" if He is ELOHIYM/YHWH or your in the Aramaic primacist rendering marya(h)???

Thanks

justalex
You are right in that "marya" vs "maryah" would be an irrelevant and insignificant variance of transliteration, if that was ever a topic to begin with. YAHUshuah on the other hand, is relevant in that it appears to be a purposeful fabrication of man without biblical support; far beyond a subtle variance in styles of transliteration. And for your information, I have never claimed to be an Aramaic primacist, or non-primacist; nor have I ever advocated for the various assertions being made relative to Mar-Yah, if that was a point you were trying to make.

Regarding Luke 2:52, if you had understood my reply, you would know that I did not interpret the verse as being "gaining favour with God and man", but instead as "gaining ... in grace or graciousness ... towards God and man". In other words, an action of Yeshua towards God and man, and not God and man towards Yeshua. I might be wrong in that interpretation, but that was my reply.

Best regards.
Reply
#14
Hi, a pastor friend of mine saids that favor strongs word 5485 should always be translated as gratitude. He, john podmolik know czech which is similar to greek in it's grammar. He does have a website called way of the Lord and is working on a more accurate translation of the kj bible.
The way I understand luke 2-52, Jesus grew up spiritually from being a baby spiritually to becoming an adult spiritually, yet never sinning at any time, when He was on the earth.
Heb 2-17-and so it was right that he should be in all respects like his brothers, that he might be a merciful and a hihg priest faithful in the things of elohim and might make expiation for the sins of the people.
Reply
#15
justalex Wrote:That's a good point Distazo... YAHUshauh was created first and you can find that also in Mishley 8 where He was "brought forth" by YHWH before the foundations of the world were made... (this is also shown in Yahuchanan 17:5)... However I cannot agree with your point that since He was created or firstborn that it makes Him ELOHIYM... as that is not proven in scripture... I was reading Luqa where it goes through the geneaologies and at the end it says that Adam was the "son of ELOHIYM" also... your assertion would have to include Adam as ELOHIYM since Adam was ELOHIYM's son as well wouldn't it??? (Scratching my head... lol)... ok guys this is a little deeper than I intended but hey, I love learning, LOL...

Thanks,

justalex

It's plainly said in the bible.

And it's quite logical as well.
John 1:1
Colossians 2:9

But if Yeshu is firstborn of God and ALL other things were created by him, we got a point.
It is no heresy or polytheism to claim that God, the almighty is a spirit, The God and his direct creating (agree?) a god as well.
God (Alaha, Elohim) is _just_ <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> a title meaning great/mighty. Saying that Jesus was God, is NOT blashpemy or trinity or what ever name you give it.
You are human, and your children will be human.
God is a spirit, and wont his first spiritual creating, called the firstborn, not be a spirit like God?

And now a smashing <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> argument.

John 1:18. (Peshitta _only_!)
Murdock "No man hath ever seen God; the only begotten God, he who is in the bosom of his Father, he hath declared [him]."

So, we have at least TWO Gods here.
John 10:34 even speaks about -gods-.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)