Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Heresy of Polygamy Has Infiltrated the Netzarim!
#61
First, I want you to calm down. This is a very emotionally charged issue, and it appears that you're getting angry. Please, let's be calm and rational. Neither of us is going to get anywhere by being angry.
Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Then you should be the first person to stand with me and repudiate the perversion of Moshe K, not argue with me about intricacies like this. Do you have any idea how many lives have been shattered beyond recognition because of this teaching and I mean RECENTLY? You haven't talked to the brokenhearted women who WANTED to veto the polygyny and who, because of what Moshe K said, had their husbands cheat before their very eyes, ruin their homes and make them suicidal. I have. You have not read the tear-stained emails and pleas for help but I have. A MAN Dawid stands up for those weaker than himself.
A man stands up for the person who cannot stand up for themselves. I think I do that pretty constantly on this website and I take a lot of crap for it.
I do not approve of what Moshe K does. I simply pursue the most accurate interpretation of Scripture that I know how, admitting that I may be wrong in the end.
But the above is an emotional argument, with a hint of an ad hominem. I still maintain the detatched, rational opinion that polygyny is permisseable.

Let's go back to the beginning shall we:

Matthew 19:4-5 4 Now he answered and said to them, "Have you not read that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female?" 5 And he said, "Because of this, A MAN SHOULD LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND SHOULD CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE AND THE TWO OF THEM WILL BECOME ONE FLESH.

Mark 10:6-8 6 but from the beginning GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7 Because of this, A MAN WILL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND JOIN TO HIS WIFE 8 AND THE TWO OF THEM WILL BECOME ONE FLESH. So then, they are not two, but one flesh.

This is what Y'shua uses to base HIS halakha on marriage!
It's his halacha on divorce. Not a generic halacha on marriage.

Christina Wrote:Genesis 2:23-24 23 Then the man said, "This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken." 24 Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

The only halakha that matters is Y'shua's because HIS interpretation of the Torah is the ONLY ONE we KNOW we can trust. I trust Y'shua ONLY, not Rambam, Hillel, Shamai or Rashi. Now does Rav Shaul agree with Meshiakh? Yes, look at this:
I agree with this entirely. Except that I would say that the Torah still overrules the Messiah, because if the two appear to contradict, we must have misunderstood, and the Torah is generally more clear.

Christina Wrote:Ephesians 5:25-31 25 Men, love your wives alas also Messiah loved his assembly and delivered himself up for it, 26 to make it holy and to cleanse it by the washing of water and by the word 27 and to establish the assembly for himself, being glorious and having no spot and no wrinkle and nothing like these, but rather to be holy [and] without blemish. 28 So it is right for men to love their wives as their [own] bodies, for he who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no one ever hates his body, but nourishes it and cares for his own [body]. [It is] even as Messiah [nourishes and cares] for his assembly, 30 because we are members of his body, and we are of his flesh and of his bones. 31 Because of this, A MAN SHOULD LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND SHOULD BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE AND THE TWO OF THEM SHOULD BECOME ONE FLESH.

This is impossible with polygyny!!! A man CANNOT love more than one woman at the same time, and Y'shua explains why:
I don't know that a man cannot love two women at one time. I love all of my friends and family and a lot of them are women.

Christina Wrote:Matthew 6:24 24 No man is able to serve two lords. For either he will hate the one and will love the other or he will honor the one and will treat the other with contempt. You are not able to serve God and wealth.

Luke 16:13 13 There is no servant that is able to serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other or honor the one and despise the other. You are not able to serve God and wealth.

Granted you might argue "this is about money not marriage", actually this principle CAN apply to marriage. You CANNOT serve two woman the WAY you're COMMANDED to in Ephesians! The commandment for husbands to love their wives, is exactly that - a COMMANDMENT which is to be OBEYED no questions asked!!! Polygynous men CANNOT obey this commandment, because it's IMPOSSIBLE to serve two womens' needs, he'll always end up having a favourite wife whom he serves while he neglects the other/s. Ya'akov is an excellent example of this: although he was married to Leah and Rachel he loved ONLY Rachel, he could not love Leah too, even if he tried. That is the way YHWH has built the human heart which is WHY Y'shua & Shaul keep referring to Genesis 2, they UNDERSTOOD this. If a man practices polygyny he CANNOT obey the commandment in Ephesians to love his wife, and therefore he sins because he is unable to obey.
She is not your master. She is your equal partner. There is a difference here. Next, you yourself stated that the only halacha that matters is that of R. Yeshua. But without explanation you have elevated Sha'ul to the level of Torah, using his halachic ruling to contradict the plain reading of the Torah.
Thus there are provisions in the Torah for what will happen, because he will invariably love one wife more. That is what the Torah tells us. It implies that he loves both, but one more than the other. Thus it informs us that he can love both, simply not equally.

Christina Wrote:And another thing:

Matthew 5:27-28 27 You have heard that it was said: YOU SHOULD NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. 28 But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman as desiring her immediately commits adultery with her in his heart.

In order for a man to consider taking another wife, he has to first "check the other woman out", so to speak. BUT Y'shua says that even this is adultery, and it doesn't matter whether or not he wants to marry her or just have sex with her, it is adultery because:
Why do you say he has to check the other woman out? The normal defense of polygyny is that if a man is married and his brother dies without children he is required to take a second wife. He probably doesn't want her, but he has to take her. I see no reason why the man has to desire the second woman, especially in a society where using a shatel-macher is the norm.

Christina Wrote:1 Corinthians 7:2-5 2 But because of fornication, a man should hold fast to his [own] wife and a woman should hold fast to her [own] husband. 3 A husband should pay to his wife the love that is owed. So also, the wife to her husband. 4 The wife [has] no authority over her body, but her husband. So also, the man [has] no authority over his body, but his wife. 5 Therefore, do not deprive one another, except when both of you consent for a time to be devoted to fasting and to prayer and return again to the same arrangement, so that Satan will not tempt you because of the desire of your body.

The message is clear alright, married couples are commanded to have sex, sex is a requirement for marriage, and of course there's the "veto power" that both spouses possess which akhan Andrew has hammered home and you agree with. Since sex is a requirement for marriage, even if a man "looks at" a woman other than his wife, he has already committed adultery even if his desire is to marry the other woman.

And btw how do you "leave your father and mother and unite to your wife" if you are already married??? In order for you to do that a 2nd, 3rd, ect. time you must be divorced! Which brings me to
on the same note, how do you "leave your father and mother" if they're dead? This is the phrasing which I already pointed out was explained by George Lamsa. If you divorce a woman, or if she is executed, that doesn't mean you're going back to your parents' house just so you can leave them again.

Christina Wrote:Matthew 5:31-32 31 It was said: HE WHO DISMISSES HIS WIFE MUST GIVE HER A WRITING OF DIVORCE. 32 But I say to you, anyone who dismisses his wife outside of the case of fornication makes her commit adultery and he who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 9 But I say to you, he who forsakes his wife, except [for] adultery, and takes another, commits adultery. And he who takes a forsaken woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:9-12 9 Therefore, that which God has joined together, man should not separate." 10 And his disciples asked him again in the house about this [matter]. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever dismisses his wife and takes another commits adultery. 12 And if a woman should dismiss her husband and be [a wife] to another, she commits adultery."

Who says women can't divorce their husbands???

Luke 16:18 18 Everyone who dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery, and everyone who marries a forsaken woman commits adultery.
This is only applicable when the entire Torah isn't being observed. Look, the only provision in the Torah for divorce is if a man finds out on his wedding night that his wife is not a virgin. Why? Fornication can only be tried if the couple was caught in the act. but she is obviously not a virgin, but she cannot be executed. If a man or woman is found to be adulterous, they are executed. Where is there a place for a woman to divorce her husband? There simply isn't an opportunity, since she can't find out on the wedding night that he's not a virgin. It's a little less obvious with us.

Christina Wrote:I really don't understand how you don't see the connection Dawid. Polygamy/polgyny is adultery which results in breaking the 7th commandment, it really couldn't be any clearer:

Exodus 20:13 13 You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Deuteronomy 5:17 17 You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
My sole standard are the books of Moses. Everything else, to me, takes a secondary place and must be made subservient to the Torah. So the Torah clearly allows polygyny. There is no debate about whether or not it was allowed under the original legislation handed down to Moshe on Har Sinai. We all agree on that. That is final to me. If R. Yeshua appears to disagree, then we must reexamine our interpretation of his words. I did. They fit with the original Mitswa, which came directly from the mouth of YHWH. I don't question His Mitswoth.

Christina Wrote:And finally, the penalty for adultery:

Hebrews 13:4 4 Marriage is to be honored by all and the [marriage] bed is to be kept pure, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9 Or do you not know that wicked [ones] will not1 inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err. Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor corrupt [ones] nor homosexuals 10 nor wrong-doers nor thieves nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners, these will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh, and one more thing: what's the major difference between fornication and adultery? Fornication is sexual sin in general which means it INCLUDES adultery, that means that if fornication is grounds for divorce then SO IS adultery. Interesting how the NT keeps lumping the "fornicators" and "adulterers" together.
I was under the (perhaps faulty) impression that fornication was having sexual relations before marriage, while adultery was having inappropriate sexual liasons after marriage. Was I wrong?
#62
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dawid,

So let me see if I have this correct:

You admit that you don't have:

1) The resources to be able to type cogently.
2) The quality library of biblical resources that I do.
3) The historical expertise that I have (with respect to how this topic squarely relates to the wider biblical world)
4) The translation ability that I have (you still don't get KHAD).

BUT---

Your view is correct and mine is wrong?
Everyone thinks their view is correct and their opponent's is wrong. Otherwise they would cease to have their opinion.

AGR Wrote:Look "dude", since you called me this, you can't assume equal credibility here and then cry you don't have equal resources. If you don't know the history, you need to look it up. If you don't have the Scripture you need to get it. If you can't challenge my facts when they are RELEVANT then your view that is LACKING THOSE FACTS cannot be on an equal footing with mine. It is as simple as that. A better argument in line with your position may theoretically be out there, but you are not in a position to deliver it with your issues here.
You have no facts. I have refuted your view point by point with one hand tied behind my back (having no resources whatsoever at my disposal) and you simply accuse me of having no facts where you had none. If we were to bring in an impartial judge from the outside I think that he would say this has been an awfully equal contest. Each of us is biased to see ourselves as the superior in evidence and information, naturally. I would simply appreciate it if you would take the time to review the position that I have defended. You say I gave no facts to contradict yours. I'm afraid this will sound disrepsectful (as was my unfortunate useage of the disrepsectful term "dude" for which I sincerely apologize) but you had none, either. It was a series of pretexts and faulty presuppositions used to incorrectly interpret a series of irrelevant passages in your favor. None of the halachic passages that you referred to were actually about monogamy vs. polygamy. Your haggadic rendering of the stories of polygamy fall flat from a lack of evidence. The halacha of the Torah is clear. Under certain circumstances, polygyny is permisseable. Nothing else is this clear anywhere with two exceptions: spouses have control over eachothers' bodies, and monogamy was the original plan.

AGR Wrote:If you feel your view is as scriptural as mine, you need to prove it. You have not. Instead you have spoken of "mutual admiration societies" as if there isn't genuine information being shared with you.

If you can't stand the Scriptural heat, get out of the halachic kitchen. I need citations and evidence, not lofty opinion-speak without proof.
Likewise.

AGR Wrote:I don't think you will prevail here. I admit I am not perfect, but I think I have proven my case on multiple fronts that you have honestly not dealt with.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Let me lay down my "bottom line" since you have done so on multiple occasions, then I will make a proposition.

Deuteronomy 15 clearly permits polygyny. The Torah is a "statute forever" (Num. 15:15). This is the only clear halacha on polygyny. If you can find a passage as clear as this is forbidding polygyny, please point it out to me. Rather, you have constructed an elaborate and delicate hoax based on placing one passage against another, based on your own presuppositions, which I would call opinions, since you are so enthusiastic about pointing out my "opinions."

My proposition: That we find an impartial judge to affirm whether or not I have held my intellectual ground against you.
#63
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:KHAD, KHAD, KHAD, KHAD, KHAD. Look Dawid, show me ONE EXAMPLE of "righteous" plural marriage in the later prophets or the NT. Go on, find it. You asked me for a demand and I gave it. Now I ask you for one. Show me a righteous polygamist from the NT. In addition to the Aramaic grammar which clearly show exclusive sexual access along with the "veto power" that I have proven to you. You THINK this is what 1 Cor means, but where is your PROOF? Where is your GRAMMAR? Lest we forget:
Your question here is rather silly, since I can't show you any polygamists from the NT. They're simply not mentioned. Ironically, you get onto my supposed rabbanism, and yet you are the one, not I, who is following the Talmudic ruling forbidding polygyny. Isn't the pot calling the kettel black?
I'm afraid I don't see that you have any solid proof here, either.

AGR Wrote:Don't you know that your bodies are the members of the Mashiyach? Will one take a member of the Mashiyach, and make it the member of a harlot? May it never be! Or don't you know, that whoever joins himself to a harlot, is one body (with her)? For it is said, the two will be one body. But he that joins himself to our Master (Y'shua), is with him one spirit. Flee from sexual sin. (1 Corinthians 6:15-18)
Injunction against harlotry...okay. But a second wife is never defined as a harlot anywhere in the Scriptures that I know of.

AGR Wrote:And concerning the things of which you wrote to me, it is praiseworthy for a man not to approach a woman. But, on account of sexual temptation, let each have his own wife and let a woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2)

HER OWN. HIS OWN. There is no sub-contracting out for carnality. And again:
Of course, this is a passage that has always been confusing to me, because the Torah clearly encourages sexual relations (Be fruitful and multiply, etc.). Abstention from sex is a Greco-Roman ideal, not a Semitic one.
However, again you are reapplying a passage to refer to polygyny, which is actually about finding relief from sexual temptation.

AGR Wrote:I would that you could bear with me a little, that I might talk foolishly: and indeed, bear with me. For I am jealous over you, with a righteous jealousy for I have espoused you to a husband as a chaste virgin whom I would present to the Mashiyach. (2 Corinthians 11:2)

And besides which, if it is "preferable" that a leader have one wife, doesn't that also make it MORALLY SUPERIOR that he does so??? Think about it. The man who has MORE WIVES is not held to the same high standard, the same "well done--you are good" kind of pass.
It is morally superior. That does not mean that polygyny is forbiden, though it is inferior.
The above is, again, using us as being a woman, who has never been allowed to have multiple husbands. You attempted to apply a passage from the prophets in this same backward format.

AGR Wrote:No, I am not. I am saying that the complexities of the history and how YHWH dealt with man are beyond your understanding at present. I agree with the Psalmist that the Torah is perfect, and you quite honestly should know that. I also agree with the Psalmist here (and everywhere):
I know you do. That is why I brought it up.

AGR Wrote:Blessed are all who fear YHWH, who walk in His ways. You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours. Your wife (SINGULAR) will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table. Thus is the man blessed who fears YHWH. May YHWH bless you from Zion all the days of your life; may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem, and may you live to see your children's children. (Psalm 128:1-6)
Again, this does not mean anything. It is simply natural to say "wife" rather than "wives." This would refer to each one individually, rather than all of them as a unit. Each one will be a fruitful vine, not all of them collectively. Even you admit that polygyny was permisseable at the time of the Psalmist.

AGR Wrote:I agree. There is no discrimination against women as the Torah stands and as it was originally intended. As I said, Y'shua said, "it was NOT that way in the beginning." There is progressive revelation in Scripture but that doesn't mean the Scripture changed. YHWH says that if you go one way, one result happens, but if you choose another, then something else. That is what happened. But I wouldn't go quoting Plessy v. Ferguson if I were you. I've always been a Brown vs the Board of Education kind of guy, and if you don't get the reference, you should look that up.
I think that here is our basic disagreement: I do not believe in progressive revelation. I believe that all of the information in Scripture is contained in the original revelation at Sinai, and the rest are merely commentary on it.

AGR Wrote:Fine, you show me where polygyny is given as an eternal statute like the moedim and I will change my opinion. I don't know what to say other than what I have already.
I don't have to, because the entire Torah is a single unit (Yaaqov 2:10) and the entire Torah is eternal (Dvarim 12:28)

AGR Wrote:But again, you don't see, I KNOW it was not forbidden 3000 years ago. That is not the point. The point is the SCRIPTURE says it was a TEMPORARY CONCESSION that was SUPERSEDED later. Torah can encompass the preiesthood going from Melchisedec to the sons of Aaron and back again. Torah can accomodate what we did at altars in Haran, in the wilderness, in the Temple and later in the synagogue. If a child changes in appearance, in height, weigh, facial hair, etc, is he not the same person YHWH made? Did the requirements for sacrifice change when the Temple was gone? NO. Did the WAY we sacrifice change? YES. That is what you are not seeing. Whenever you come across something that doesn't immediately fit the easiest interpretation for you, what you do is go back to absolute statements on Torah immutability as if to suggest that I don't agree with that.
I must again disagree with all of this. Sacrifice, literal sacrifice, is a statute forever. As is the priesthood of Aaron (as per Bamidbar 18).
What was allowed 3,000 years ago is still a valid statute today. Where does it say that this was a temporary concession? Nowhere. Your proof for this is still yet to be forthcoming.

AGR Wrote:Well the Mormons will tell you probably that 95% of them outlawed the practice 100 years ago, but I get your point. This is a slippery slope though that you are on. You may use the "freedom" you suggest wisely, but from there it leads to death and broken hearts. Light cannot have fellowship with darkness, and I will stand halachically against this idea BECAUSE of the Scripture I have given, not in spite of it or in absence of it.
Theology is one great big slippery slope. One step too far in any direction and you're screwed no matter the direction. I'll take my chances on the most logical interpretation that I know.

AGR Wrote:Yes but again, that wasn't YOUR position up until recently because you didn't read the Scripture and I would submit that now you still have not read it. I think I have done all I can here. I appreciate that you respect me and that you are zealous for your point of view, but I take exception with your methods and your presentation. Look at all the work I had to do just to break this mega-paragraph of yours up into a cogent form. I need more citation and less pure opinion from you my brother. As I have said, you are on a good path and have many admirable qualities, but you have not engaged me to the standard that I have for such. I should NOT have had to chide you so much to just read the article. You were very remiss in looking at this and very late and inadequate in the way you have responded to these issues.
It would be impossible to meet you satisfactorily, because you require evidence to meet yours when you have none. You require facts when you have given only opinions. You require logic where you have only strawmen. Your argument is, granted, far more impressive than mine. But it is hollow, and has no actual substance. It is built around certain presuppositions which you failed to support, and certain faulty applications. Your entire argument can be broken into two halves: False presuppositions, and misapplication of halacha. I don't have to bring historical or Scriptural evidence against these because, to the objective mind, they fall at mere logical analysis without counter evidence, and the burden of evidence remains squarely on your shoulders to actually prove a contravention of the clear halachic ruling in the Torah.

AGR Wrote:And finally, if you don't see the exlcusivity of sexual access between man and wife in the grammar of the Aramaic NT, I can't help you at all.
It might help me if you would actually show them to me. As it is you've given me some blather about "khad" and defined nothing in as far as I have seen.
#64
People. What does any of this have to do with Aramaic or the Peshitta? Someone give me a good reason why this thread belongs on a website called "Peshitta.org?"

I made the Nazarene forum so that Nazarenes can discuss the Aramaic NT, not sexual prohibitions or preferences.

Unless a good reason is given to keep this thread alive, it will self-destruct in 24 hours.

+Shamasha
#65
Shlama akhi Paul,

Hey, I???m only dropping by to mention this: I???ll be the first to admit that this debate has gone on long enough, but it???s been a debate that I feel has had direct bearing on Andrew???s credibility as an up-and-coming publicized translator, and a Nazarene one at that. Too many folks are going to be suspicious about him simply due to unaffiliated wolves in sheep???s clothing out there which have already had an unprecedented wave of destruction on the flock-at-large. Other than Shali???s website, I figure that many people may stream through yours once they catch wind of Andrew???s translation, looking anywhere and everywhere to find either credibility, or dirt, on him before considering to buy his translation. Andrew???s position, and that of the wolves???, are delineated in this thread quite extensively.

Post and even thread deletions seem to have become more and more common place lately, and this is understandable when there???s personal wars being waged, but this subject here is more like a public and spiritually pertinent one, in the same vein as Yeshua???s address to divorce, and Shaul???s address to all forms of licentiousness. Aside from this, there have been a plenteous amount of VERY useful links provided throughout, including Bonnie???s. Take hers down, and never see me again.

Quote:I made the Nazarene forum so that Nazarenes can discuss the Aramaic NT, not sexual prohibitions or preferences.

To answer your statement somewhat matter-of-factly, there HAS been discussion in here from Nazarenes, FROM the Aramaic NT. Andrew and Christina, namely. If sexual prohibitions or preferences cannot be discussed, then what???s next? Murder? The Aramaic NT discusses this moral issue as well. In fact, it provides for quite the lively debate: does the Text really say ???murder???, or ???kill??? ??? and would this condone or condemn abortion? Of course, this all leads down the path of THEOLOGICAL speak. But then again, how does one seriously dissect theology thoroughly from Scripture, which is itself a 100% theological treatise? Perhaps I side with Andrew instead of Dawid here, but even Andrew has given him enough consideration and respect to present his alleged position and facts, so as to cover every angle of SCRIPTURE.

Now, I know that you???ve created one place for Nazarenes; one place for the CoE. This is because of differing theological trends between the two camps, no? And if this is right, then I can only say that I???m at a loss to see your unequal measuring of this valid topic, in light of such ones over on your place such as:

???It all started with Plan G???
???To Don: Genetic Mapping of modern Assyrians???
???CoE on escatology???

They only beg the same question:

Quote:What does any of this have to do with Aramaic or the Peshitta? Someone give me a good reason why this thread belongs on a website called "Peshitta.org?"

Or am I wrong about this, dear akhi?

And yes, that would also have to go for every topic in our place concerning Torah and Tanakh, Jewish people and Righteous Gentiles, and for that matter, all those topics in the General Forum related to the Masoretic Text, public apologies, public admonitions, or such ones as ???What are Semitic Christians Referred To In Their Region???. All of these are either on personal notes; concern tradition; the wrong Testament; ethnicity; or regard ecclesiology, which by the way is further off track than whether Yeshua theologically condoned or condemned polygny. And I thought that at least Andrew did a pretty good job of trying to keep this steamship steering in the right direction, always appealing to the Aramaic Language of Yeshua???s Peshitta concerning the moral debacle.

It seems like what you???re looking for here, would be akin to me asking you to separate the Aramaic Language from its heritage Assyrian people, when in dialogue. Theology and tradition will always crop up and readily be there, friend. It just happens that polygny has sprung up among THIS camp, and needs to be properly addressed especially by those qualified: namely, Andrew Gabriel Roth ??? Aramaicist extraordinaire, and condemner of sexual heresy as derived from Hebrew Tanakh and Aramaic Peshitta. Not so different from Paul Younan ??? Aramaicist extraordinaire, and condemner of Romish heresy and hypocrisy as derived from holy Eastern Apostolic Tradition and Aramaic Peshitta.

Hope this is enough to at least think about, if not a good enough reason(s) for you.


Most affectionately yours,

Akh Ryan
#66
Shlama all,

I have to agree that this particular thread has run it's course IMO. Now I think it's fine to touch on theological issues as long as such questions & answers concern the Peshitta and Aramaic language. Let's not get sidetracked with the Torah, Talmud & Rabbis, let such discussions stay within the scope of the Peshitta NT & Aramaic language. Let the questions be about Peshitta NT passages only and let us answer them linguistically not from tradition.
#67
Shlama Akhi Ryan,

You've convinced me that the thread should remain, however for the sake of progress I will lock it so no more replies can be made to the original thread.

On the point about the "Plan G" post, I do want to make one thing clear - the relevance to the stated mission of the website is readily apparent to those who are familiar with the history behind the 1891 Mosul Edition of the Peshitta. Additionally, those familiar with the tragic story of Coonan Cross will know why the "Plan G" thread does have a place here.

+Shamasha


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)