02-15-2005, 10:18 PM
WAS JESUS CHRIST FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER-GOD?
There is a complete rejection of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures in the Mel Gibson movie. For example, the pronunciation of Jesus' words from the Cross in Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew is Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani. In the movie, we hear the words Ullahi, Ullahi, lema sabactani which is translated in error as My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.
This utterance by Eashoa' while on the Cross is fully retained in all the the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, but its transliteration is in total error. Nowhere in the Aramaic Scriptures does the word sh'wik-thani mean "forsaken." On this passage alone may hang the entire misinterpretation of the Scriptures by Western Christianity.
The Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic text of the passage accurately reads Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani and there is no translation or addition after it, such as "Why has thou forsaken me," because there's no need to translate the Ancient Aramaic. This passage, as well as the entire New Testament, is already written in the Ancient Aramaic texts and needs no "add-ons."
In the original ancient Aramaic, the passage spoken literally says in English, "I AM, I AM, wherefore have you left me?" The Aramaic word Eil is a title of God, "IS" or "I AM." Idiomatically, l'ma-na (wherefore) implies destiny. Sh'wik-thani means "left me" in the sense of the purpose for which Jesus was left on the cross. It absolutely does not mean "forsaken" in this usage.
This fallacy has evolved out of the modern Chaldean-Arabic version of the Bible, the very version that the Greek and the Latin Vulgate are translated from, as well as the 1611 King James Version and all other Western Bibles. They all have changed this passage and declared - without any authenticity or written proof - that the Father-God forsook His Son.
Now, this Mel Gibson film comes on the world stage unintentionally exposing this hypocrisy of the Western churches. On the one hand, the mainstream Christian churches of the West claim that the New Testament was written in Greek; and on the other hand, they retain the Chaldean-Arabic passage in the Text of their Bibles. One could not be more ironic if they had tried.
There is a complete rejection of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures in the Mel Gibson movie. For example, the pronunciation of Jesus' words from the Cross in Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew is Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani. In the movie, we hear the words Ullahi, Ullahi, lema sabactani which is translated in error as My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.
This utterance by Eashoa' while on the Cross is fully retained in all the the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, but its transliteration is in total error. Nowhere in the Aramaic Scriptures does the word sh'wik-thani mean "forsaken." On this passage alone may hang the entire misinterpretation of the Scriptures by Western Christianity.
The Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic text of the passage accurately reads Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani and there is no translation or addition after it, such as "Why has thou forsaken me," because there's no need to translate the Ancient Aramaic. This passage, as well as the entire New Testament, is already written in the Ancient Aramaic texts and needs no "add-ons."
In the original ancient Aramaic, the passage spoken literally says in English, "I AM, I AM, wherefore have you left me?" The Aramaic word Eil is a title of God, "IS" or "I AM." Idiomatically, l'ma-na (wherefore) implies destiny. Sh'wik-thani means "left me" in the sense of the purpose for which Jesus was left on the cross. It absolutely does not mean "forsaken" in this usage.
This fallacy has evolved out of the modern Chaldean-Arabic version of the Bible, the very version that the Greek and the Latin Vulgate are translated from, as well as the 1611 King James Version and all other Western Bibles. They all have changed this passage and declared - without any authenticity or written proof - that the Father-God forsook His Son.
Now, this Mel Gibson film comes on the world stage unintentionally exposing this hypocrisy of the Western churches. On the one hand, the mainstream Christian churches of the West claim that the New Testament was written in Greek; and on the other hand, they retain the Chaldean-Arabic passage in the Text of their Bibles. One could not be more ironic if they had tried.