Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Revelation Good case for Aramaic Primacy?? Come on now
#31
Quote from "1 Clement":

Quote:Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a ph??nix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

This is scripture ? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
Reply
#32
Paul Younan Wrote:Quote from "1 Clement":

Quote:Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a ph??nix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

This is scripture ? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
<!-- s:whatthat: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whatsthat.gif" alt=":whatthat:" title="Whats That" /><!-- s:whatthat: -->

It's the contents that really matter. Would you really consider that this book could be inspired if you found an Aramaic original for it? For me the English version is enough for me to say "no way". I have heard though that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church don't actually have an official cannon, they have a "broader" and "narrower" cannon, so even they dispute what exactly is inspired.
Reply
#33
No way, there are plenty of things composed in Aramaic in the 1st century AD that I do not consider scriptural. I mean things like the Odes of Solomon - so Orthodox in it's message, it could be placed right up there next to the Psalms. But it wasn't written by an apostle or an immediate disciple, so it won't make it into any canon just because of the language of composition.

I don't get how any church considers 1Clement scriptural, broad or narrow. The book is obviously validating paganism, and what of this priesthood in Egypt it speaks about? This is a priesthood of what? A mythical fire-bird?
Reply
#34
Paul Younan Wrote:No way, there are plenty of things composed in Aramaic in the 1st century AD that I do not consider scriptural. I mean things like the Odes of Solomon - so Orthodox in it's message, it could be placed right up there next to the Psalms. But it wasn't written by an apostle or an immediate disciple, so it won't make it into any canon just because of the language of composition.

I don't get how any church considers 1Clement scriptural, broad or narrow. The book is obviously validating paganism, and what of this priesthood in Egypt it speaks about? This is a priesthood of what? A mythical fire-bird?

Shlama Akhi Paul:
Do you consider the W-5 on the same level of spiritual content as I Clement? Also, Have you found anything in the W-5 that contradicts anything in the 22 book Peshitta or the T"NK?

Some years ago I presented to you the unavoidable truth that II Peter 1:4 is the only place in the "western" 27 book New Testament canon that contains the phrase "divine nature". To your understanding, as an Assyrian Christian, is the context of this phrase in accordance with the teaching of the nature of godliness in the CoE? Put another way Akhi Paul, is the context of this Aramaic phrase [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yhl0 0nykd[/font], "of the divine nature" or "of the nature of godliness", translated from Greek into Aramaic by both Philoxenus' recension and Thomas of Harkel's revision of II Peter 2:4, considered either pagan or heretical by the CoE? Is there anything that is spiritually/doctrinally unsound at all in the Western Five?

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#35
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I would like to answer this for myself quickly:

1) I believe the COE considers the W5 as "pious works" which is above even the writings of their most beloved saints like Ephraim but below what would be read liturgically. It seems very like how the Writings in my liturgy are not read in the haftorah cycle. I believe the COE also is fine if people want to study the W5 at home and agrees that there are no errors doctrinally in them.

2) I believe that Paul and know that I have way higher regard for the W5 than a book like 1 Clement, or Enoch or any other such work. To me the W5 are Scripture too, but through a different process. Ben Sira, Tobit and friends are not nearly as important.

3) 2 Peter 1:4 is the only place that DIRECTLY says "divine nature' but the divine nature is talked about in the 22 in other ways. I would reference qnoma and living water teachings in John 4 and 5, Hebrews 1:1-5 and also most precisely Galatians 4:8 on idols "who by their NATURE are not gods". 2 Peter does not contradict the 22 here but neither does the 22 need 2 Peter 1:4 when it makes the exact same point.

Hope this helps and I will defer to Akhan Paul to confirm what I am saying from his view.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#36
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Stephen Silver Wrote:Do you consider the W-5 on the same level of spiritual content as I Clement? Also, Have you found anything in the W-5 that contradicts anything in the 22 book Peshitta or the T"NK?

I do think I wrote somewhere earlier on this thread, and others in the past, that there is nothing theologically significant within the W-5 that is not already present in other scriptural texts. That being the case, these books which make up the W-5 are orthodox and useful for teaching, growing in the faith and personal study. But in the practice of the CoE that does not scripture them make.

We call them "pious books" as a friendly gesture to our sister churches who do accept these books as canonical and do read from them in their liturgy. We accept their value based on the witness of our fellow believers in Messiah. However, our liturgical cycle (as written in the book of KHudra), has been set for a long time and it cannot be changed.

No, of course I do not rank Jude up there with 1Clement or the book of Mormon, but I am a bit bothered that it quotes from what is universally considered an apocryphal book, Enoch. How could we consider Enoch to be uninspired if we consider Jude to be inspired, and Jude quotes from Enoch? The Church fathers, eastern and western, struggled with questions just like this for a long time before the western canon finally included Jude.

Stephen Silver Wrote:Some years ago I presented to you the unavoidable truth that II Peter 1:4 is the only place in the "western" 27 book New Testament canon that contains the phrase "divine nature". To your understanding, as an Assyrian Christian, is the context of this phrase in accordance with the teaching of the nature of godliness in the CoE? Put another way Akhi Paul, is the context of this Aramaic phrase [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yhl0 0nykd[/font], "of the divine nature" or "of the nature of godliness", translated from Greek into Aramaic by both Philoxenus' recension and Thomas of Harkel's revision of II Peter 2:4, considered either pagan or heretical by the CoE? Is there anything that is spiritually/doctrinally unsound at all in the Western Five?

Shlama,
Stephen

Actually your point is well taken, the CoE would have been served well during the theological wars that raged in the 5th century if it had appealed to 2Peter, however including a book in your canonical list simply because it supports your theological position is a wrong reason.

Akhi, it's the late age of these books that really killed it for them in the east, and almost in the west. Their apostolic origin could not be easily verified, their chain of custody was disputed. By the time they made it to us it was way too late. And they didn't have an easy time in the west, either.

We're talking about books, with the exception of Revelation, that are really minor and insignificant. Revelation just gives a lot more detail to what we already knew would happen, the end of the world is coming, the Kingdom is coming, Messiah will reign, the adversary will be defeated. Meshikha taught us these things, as did the Prophets.

+Shamasha
Reply
#37
Shlama all--

I should point out that if we are to view with suspicion works that quote from pagan, extra-scriptural or other questionable sources not today canonized in any tradition, we would be throwing out a lot more than just Jude. 1 Corinthians and Titus quote from Greek poets like Menander and Epimenides for example, and these are far from isolated instances in Rav Shaul's writings. Rav Shaul clearly said he became a Jew to witness to Israel and a Roman to witness to Gentiles. He therefore used whatever he needed to get across a point to a given group of people, at least to meet them where they were in their walk, and then take them to where they needed to be. I could even point to allusions from the Zohar, Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls (under the Torah, works of the Torah) if need be.

So Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses and Enoch--not a problem if we apply equal weights and measures to all the NT.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#38
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

I should point out that if we are to view with suspicion works that quote from pagan, extra-scriptural or other questionable sources not today canonized in any tradition, we would be throwing out a lot more than just Jude. 1 Corinthians and Titus quote from Greek poets like Menander and Epimenides for example, and these are far from isolated instances in Rav Shaul's writings. Rav Shaul clearly said he became a Jew to witness to Israel and a Roman to witness to Gentiles. He therefore used whatever he needed to get across a point to a given group of people, at least to meet them where they were in their walk, and then take them to where they needed to be. I could even point to allusions from the Zohar, Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls (under the Torah, works of the Torah) if need be.

So Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses and Enoch--not a problem if we apply equal weights and measures to all the NT.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Andrew makes a good point Paul, the Tanakh is not free from extra-Biblical allusions either. What do you do with all those verses about Lilith & Leviathan? These are characters from ancient Near Eastern mythology. Was YHWH validating their existence? No, He was just using familiar imagery to make a point. YHWH communicates with us on our own level otherwise we wouldn't understand Him.

I understand your position from a liturgical view, but is this the only test for divine inspiration? What about apologetics, when it comes to defending your faith in the word of God? Can you put your hand on the book and confidently say "this is the word of God"? Can you feel the Rukha move when you read the book?

For me personally, I can feel the Rukha move when I read every book in the Protestant cannon except one - Esther, I cannot confidently say to anyone that I believe the book of Esther is "Alaha-breathed". See what I mean?
Reply
#39
Shlama Christina,

Quote:Can you feel the Rukha move when you read the book?

For me personally, I can feel the Rukha move when I read every book in the Protestant cannon except one .....

See what I mean?

Now that's what I'm talking about!

"For the word of God is living and all-efficient, and much sharper than a double edged sword, and it pierces to the separation of soul and spirit and of joints, marrow and of bones, and judges the reasoning and conscience of the heart."
- Heb. 4:12 in Plain English

"Therefore faith is from the hearing ear, and the hearing ear is from the word of God."
-Rom. 10:17 in Plain English

!!!!!!!

(hey - have you gotten 2 emails I've sent?)

Akh Ryan
Reply
#40
Amatsyah Wrote:Shlama Christina,
(hey - have you gotten 2 emails I've sent?)

Yip, and I just replied to them, explaining my reasons for my delay, and confirmation for "you know what".
Reply
#41
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

I should point out that if we are to view with suspicion works that quote from pagan, extra-scriptural or other questionable sources not today canonized in any tradition, we would be throwing out a lot more than just Jude. 1 Corinthians and Titus quote from Greek poets like Menander and Epimenides for example, and these are far from isolated instances in Rav Shaul's writings. Rav Shaul clearly said he became a Jew to witness to Israel and a Roman to witness to Gentiles. He therefore used whatever he needed to get across a point to a given group of people, at least to meet them where they were in their walk, and then take them to where they needed to be. I could even point to allusions from the Zohar, Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls (under the Torah, works of the Torah) if need be.

So Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses and Enoch--not a problem if we apply equal weights and measures to all the NT.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

Shlama Akhi Andrew,

But the Apostle Paul, when quoting from Greek philosophists, was not putting words in the mouth of God. The quote from Jude is validating the account in the book of Enoch regarding the supposed prophetic utterance.

Now notice the wording of 1 Enoch 1:9:

Quote:And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

How about Jude's reliance on the "Assumption of Moses."

Paul quoting popular modern writers on non-biblical issues is not quite on the same level.

+Shamasha
Reply
#42
Shlama AKhi Paul,

Actually what I think is going on is both Rav Shaul and Jude are using extra-canonical but well known works to make points to their audience that are confirmed elsewhere in Scripture. Let us take a look at what I am talking about:

28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Acts 17:28

Now here is the REAL source Rav Shaul is trying to get across to his audience:

10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

Job 12:10

23 Instead, you have set yourself up against the Lord of heaven. You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the El who holds in his hand your life and all your ways.

Daniel 5:23

So Rav Shaul is using the Greek poets to speak for YHWH in the sense that he has found one of their quotes that matches Tanakh. He never introduces materials not confirmed from Scripture. Here's another example:

33 Do not be deceived: bad company corrupts good morals.

1 Corinthians 15:33

This is a line from Menander, and he likes it A LOT because it is also in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 6:7 (the form of "do not be deceived" is identical in Greek and well known to his audiences). But from that familar place, "bad company corrupts good morals" is surely well reflected in Scripture elsewhere. Torah after all commands us not to follow a crowd into evil.

Next:

In Titus 1:12 Rav Shaul uses the vernacular in effect "to Cretianize" which means to lie. Where did he get this idea that Cretans lie? Answer: Epimemides. But where does Rav Shaul get the general concept? Again Tanakh, which deals with false prophets twisting truth, etc.

Now with these examples in mind, let's move on to Jude.

Two verses that no doubt give you pause are verse 9 and 14. This does not, as I have shown with Rav Shaul, mean that he or any other NT writer viewed these works as canonical. Rather it means they both knew they are POPULAR and could get their SCRIPTURE POINTS out more effectively.

So in verse 9 it says:

But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses did not produce a railing judgment but said, "YHWH rebuke you".

Now granted, the exact incident as a matter of history is NOT scriptural, but that isn't the point. The point was that the story Jude uses tells us by example what Scripture tells us plainly. You do not argue with Satan. You rebuke him and send him packing:

Submit yourselves, then, to Elohim. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

James 4:7

Then we get to verse 14:

And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied saying "Behold YHWH comes with many thousands of his holy ones".

Well, my first point is surely YHWH does come in power and glory with myriads of his angels!!! That is a FACT. Just see Daniel 7--that is an accurate description of the Holy Throne.

My second point is here:

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because Elohim took him up, FOR HE OBTAINED THE WITNESS THAT BEFORE HE WAS TAKEN UP THAT HE WAS PLEASING TO ELOHIM.

Hebrews 11:5

What does "obtained the witness" here mean? All Genesis tells us is that Enoch walked with YHWH and he was no more, but here there is another "witness"???

It can mean to me only this: it is ENOCH's OWN WITNESS to these same things because Torah shows the witness must be independent, i.e. NOT YHWH:

"Take this Book of the Torah and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the YHWH your Elohim. There it will remain as a witness against you. "

Deuteronomy 31:26

"And we said, 'If they ever say this to us, or to our descendants, we will answer: Look at the replica of the YHWH's altar, which our fathers built, not for burnt offerings and sacrifices, but as a witness between us and you.'

Joshua 22:28

Now when it comes to men (1 Sam 20:22) like Samuel the Prophet, he can appeal HIS RULING have YHWH as HIS WITNESS, but it also clearly works the other way around. A witness for YHWH can be a structure, a holy object or, as I believe with Enoch, a PROPHECY:

Isaiah 30:8-17
8 Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness. 9 These are rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the Lord's instruction. 10 They say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. 11 Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!" 12 Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says: "Because you have rejected this message, relied on oppression and depended on deceit, 13 this sin will become for you like a high wall, cracked and bulging, that collapses suddenly, in an instant. 14 It will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern."

True Scripture doesn't say directly Enoch said it, but Hebrews CLEARLY tells us some prophecy of Enoch existed, and what has come down outside of Scripture is reflected 100% perfectly IN SCRIPTURE.

I think that while to our modern eyes and sensibilities the situation with Jude and these sources is not ideal, but I also firmly believe the problem, if there is one, has been grossly exaggerated.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#43
Quote:True Scripture doesn't say directly Enoch said it, but Hebrews CLEARLY tells us some prophecy of Enoch existed, and what has come down outside of Scripture is reflected 100% perfectly IN SCRIPTURE.

Shlama Akhi Andrew:
For brevity's sake I won't quote all of your last posting. However, well put! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#44
Thank-you all for your replies and posts. I have spent approx. the last hour or so reading and digesting them. I would like to respond to some of them. Much of this thread deals with the W-5 and my hang up with them. I will just say I guess that a quote apparantly made by George Lamsa stamped a big impression on my mind. When you stamp something it is not easy to get it off. Well, I think George Lamsa made this statement when he came to America:" There is not one letter in the New Testament that was originally written in Greek." This is my paraphrase of Lamsa's quote and again, I am just saying that it placed an imprint on my mind. Whatever were the exact quotes by Mr. Lamsa the intent and goal of what he was saying could not be mistaken. It was that not one letter in the New Testament was penned in Greek but they were all penned in Aramaic. That was one of the launching pads and premesis I started with. To an evangelical Christian in the West that means he was saying something akin to -
" all 27 books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic and, further, we have indisputable and overwhelming evidence to support this." Again, this is the "engraving" that was placed on my mind. I have to admit I did not follow through to make sure George Lamsa really said this. It was just a quote I believe that Paul attributed to Mr. Lamsa when he came to hte United States and found that all of Western Biblical scholarship used the Greek text as the original language of the New Testament. I don't know exactly where this quote is on the web-site. Just try to understand from what ground I began this journey.

The subject of "varying degrees of authority or importance of Scripture" was also brought up. I would just say, Scripture itself does not make any kind of distinction here from what I see. When we see how Scripture views itself and when Scripture talks about the Scriptures I don't see that there is any kind of "rank" (1st degree Scripture, 2nd degree Scripture, . . .) breakdown. Scripture is all treated as Scripture when we only look through what the Scripture says a bout Scripture.

Doug asked me a question a few replies back: "I believe most of the regulars here agree that the 22 books of the Peshitta represent Aramaic originals of those books. Do you agree with them?" My immediate response would be yes. But underneath this answer there are varying levels of doubt. I can not answer this with a bold "YES'' and "AMEN." I find Aramaic Primacy whether of the 27 books New Testament canon or the 22 book canon to be with some "dilemnas" or problems.

I now stand corrected of Mr. Lataster's name. From now on I will do my best to refer to him as Raphael Lataster.

Now, this thing about Revelation and it posing some problems for Aramaic Primacy. Just let me say that we, not having an underlying Aramaic copy(original), for me, is not a huge problem if there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to an Aramaic letter. Is there enough split word examples in Revelation to cause a Greek Primacist to say, "Enough is enough. I may concede my position."?? Paul consantly says that the case is weak if he does not have an "Aramaic manuscript" as the source for the Greek copy of Revelation. I am not a linguist but to me, if one is to find enough "fingerprint" marks of Aramaic in Revelation the jury could have enough evidence to find a Greek Primacist "guilty" for misinformation. That ios just my position. I plan to look at Revelation some time in the future, G-d willing.

Thank-you. Aloha loves each and everyone

Mike Karoules
Reply
#45
Hi, Mike!

If you're not totally convinced of Peshitta primacy, then that's a good place to start (that's why I had asked the question). I've been around here for several years, and I haven't seen these guys try to dodge any questions about the Peshitta. Start there. If the Aramaic primacy of the 22 Peshitta books can't be defended, then it doesn't make much sense to expand the discussion to include the "Western Five."

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
-Whitey
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)