08-28-2008, 07:07 PM
Paul and all. I don't know if I am still confused or not. But how can you get away with it, Paul, that 2 Peter is not genuine (spurious) or by the Apostle Peter himself?? I know you are aware of the phrase in 2 Peter where he himself said, (my paraphrase or in Mike's words) - "This is now my 2nd epistle to you , my beloved. . ." Oh, well, I may not win this argument.
Now about your last statement: "However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic Peshitta primacist to make a case for any particular example by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of '2 Pet'. , {2 John, 3 John, Jude or Revelation.} This , of course would be absurd." I assume you would also include the other four, that is why I bracketed them. But I had to look at this sentance of yours again to see if I was not losing my mind. Paul, you read my whole reply to Andrew I take it and you know I said that your and Andrew's fingerprints are everywhere in Mr. Lancaster's book. As a matter of fact I think you did most all of the footwork or much of it. Mr. Lancaster is a Peshitta Primacist as you know and he did indeed use Revelation "to make a case" as an example (3 or 4 actually) "by appealing to a later translation of Revelation." Am I now to believe that Mr. Lancaster is absurd in doing this???? Your words say so. I was just browsing through some of his "split words" examples yesterday. I actually focused on the ones in the Gospel of John. I did not go to his "Revelation examples" but there are 3 or 4 of them there. What's up with this? My only conclusion is that we are not on the same page for some reason. You and Andrew admit to an underling Greek in the Western 5 books?? Right?? Yes you do as I have learned today to my astonishment (somewhat). Well, again Paul, you will notice that Revelation was sent to 7 churches in 7 cities of Asia Minor (Turkey today) and one of those cities is Ephesus. Well, I am not going to bring you down that path again which I did in my last reply. But as for John - even reading in the english the very characteristics of his words, his writing style does not change. The flow of thought patterns, words, phrases and syntax is very consistent in all of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. How can you even possibly say that there is an Aramaic underlining composition or style for the Gospel of John and 1 John and then turn right around and say there is not for 2 John and 3 John??? ???? ???? Like I said in my last post, any Greek primacist who is thirsty for a more purer manuscript base for the New Testament will be lost (to Aramaic Primacy) right there. That is for those who can't or will not take time to dig deep. But can you blame them?? It will lead them to conclude that we have a "mixed bag." Okay, again I hope I don't sound harsh or belittling to you. I can't afford to because I have been wrong many times before. I desire my tone to be gentle and sincere. We are dealing with something serious here, I believe. This is very much an apologetic issue.
May both you/I pursue both the Wisdon and love of Aloha.
Mike
Now about your last statement: "However, I do not expect Andrew or any other Aramaic Peshitta primacist to make a case for any particular example by appealing to the (later) Aramaic translation of '2 Pet'. , {2 John, 3 John, Jude or Revelation.} This , of course would be absurd." I assume you would also include the other four, that is why I bracketed them. But I had to look at this sentance of yours again to see if I was not losing my mind. Paul, you read my whole reply to Andrew I take it and you know I said that your and Andrew's fingerprints are everywhere in Mr. Lancaster's book. As a matter of fact I think you did most all of the footwork or much of it. Mr. Lancaster is a Peshitta Primacist as you know and he did indeed use Revelation "to make a case" as an example (3 or 4 actually) "by appealing to a later translation of Revelation." Am I now to believe that Mr. Lancaster is absurd in doing this???? Your words say so. I was just browsing through some of his "split words" examples yesterday. I actually focused on the ones in the Gospel of John. I did not go to his "Revelation examples" but there are 3 or 4 of them there. What's up with this? My only conclusion is that we are not on the same page for some reason. You and Andrew admit to an underling Greek in the Western 5 books?? Right?? Yes you do as I have learned today to my astonishment (somewhat). Well, again Paul, you will notice that Revelation was sent to 7 churches in 7 cities of Asia Minor (Turkey today) and one of those cities is Ephesus. Well, I am not going to bring you down that path again which I did in my last reply. But as for John - even reading in the english the very characteristics of his words, his writing style does not change. The flow of thought patterns, words, phrases and syntax is very consistent in all of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. How can you even possibly say that there is an Aramaic underlining composition or style for the Gospel of John and 1 John and then turn right around and say there is not for 2 John and 3 John??? ???? ???? Like I said in my last post, any Greek primacist who is thirsty for a more purer manuscript base for the New Testament will be lost (to Aramaic Primacy) right there. That is for those who can't or will not take time to dig deep. But can you blame them?? It will lead them to conclude that we have a "mixed bag." Okay, again I hope I don't sound harsh or belittling to you. I can't afford to because I have been wrong many times before. I desire my tone to be gentle and sincere. We are dealing with something serious here, I believe. This is very much an apologetic issue.
May both you/I pursue both the Wisdon and love of Aloha.
Mike