Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"MarYah deception" ???
Shlama akhi Paul,


thanks again for this extra information! this is wonderful info to have. this and the grammatical aspect seal the deal for me with no room for doubt. while i can at least understand Jerry's grammatical reluctance to accept MARYA as including the Divine Name, this added aspect of the usage of MAR in ancient times serves to really up the ante that it was originally formed of MAR+YAH.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
Shlama Akhan Jeremy,

You can also find the construct state of MARA in the original Aramaic of Daniel 5:23:

"w Al Mara-Shmayya Ethrummeth" (and you have exalted yourself over the Lord of Heaven...)

So its use is quite documented prior to the apostolic age.

+Shamasha
Reply
:

When a person has a theological belief that is not taught in The Holy Scriptures, then they have to do their best to try and make it say what they want it to say, so they can feel good about teaching and believing it.

Mar-YAH, is GOD, The Word, manifested in humanity in the Person of YAH-shua... Thank God for His Holy Scriptures, or else we would be lost without a compass upon the sea human "reason", being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine that might blow our way from others minds...
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:When a person has a theological belief that is not taught in The Holy Scriptures, then they have to do their best to try and make it say what they want it to say, so they can feel good about teaching and believing it.

Mar-YAH, is GOD, The Word, manifested in humanity in the Person of YAH-shua... Thank God for His Holy Scriptures, or else we would be lost without a compass upon the sea human "reason", being tossed by to and fro by every wind of doctrine that might blow our way from others minds...

I'm pretty confident in saying, that if it were not that the NT refers to Messiah as MRYA, the very people you speak of wouldn't have a problem with the MarYah interpretation. If it were only the 7000+ instances in the Aramaic OT for their witness that MRYA is the Aramaic placeholder for YHWH, they'd be ok with that interpretation.

But they need to find a way to either make it either an Emphatic somehow, or as a last ditch a special exception to normal grammar (special how, I haven't a clue). Cognitive Dissonance is a very powerful psychological response.

+Shamasha
Reply
One who cannot separate a speculative theory from a theological belief has proven only his own arrogance.

One posts a fervent requirement for believing in a MarYah interpretation, then posts a translation that renders it as "Master YHWH". You would think they would at least live by their own dogma. These people change the words of the Peshitta to fit their own opinions. They even pretend to know better what Kipha had in mind in Acts 2:38 than the original authors of the Peshitta itself.

The same people who believe that 7,000 instances of a placeholder MarYah is proof of a sacred proper noun, want us to believe that 7,000 instances of a placeholder Lord is not. They are right on the latter, and wrong on the former. They want us to believe that MauR-Yau` and Mau-Ra-Yau` are completely unrelated, as though one is a sacred proper noun, and the other is just a word that means "the-lords". They want us to believe that the sacred proper noun MauR-Yau` (MarYah as they say) just coincidentally falls into the same root as the one for "the-lord" Mau-Rau`. They want us to believe the impossible.

In their wildest imaginations, if all their assumptions were correct, the farthest they could ever take the word is "Lord God", a slightly more embellished placeholder than "the-Lord". Yet they market it as some sacred proper noun, even a test of one's theological belief. As though your entrance into heaven is dependant upon you believing their version of MarYah. Or that one cannot not know the relationship between Yeshua and YHWH unless first believing their speculative theory of a proper noun.

A significant reason for me learning to do my own translation of the Peshitta NT, is to get away from the hype and pseudo doctrine being marketed on the internet, and sadly even on sites like this.
Reply
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhan Jeremy,

You can also find the construct state of MARA in the original Aramaic of Daniel 5:23:

"w Al Mara-Shmayya Ethrummeth" (and you have exalted yourself over the Lord of Heaven...)

So its use is quite documented prior to the apostolic age.

+Shamasha


Shlama Akhi Paul,


yes, i recall seeing MARA from Daniel - it was the ancient use of MAR that i hadn't previously been able to find. but now that has been settled with the instances you've provided!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
Jerry Wrote:One who cannot separate a speculative theory from a theological belief has proven only his own arrogance.

One posts a fervent requirement for believing in a MarYah interpretation, then posts a translation that renders it as "Master YHWH". You would think they would at least live by their own dogma. These people change the words of the Peshitta to fit their own opinions. They even pretend to know better what Kipha had in mind in Acts 2:38 than the original authors of the Peshitta itself.

The same people who believe that 7,000 instances of a placeholder MarYah is proof of a sacred proper noun, want us to believe that 7,000 instances of a placeholder Lord is not. They are right on the latter, and wrong on the former. They want us to believe that MauR-Yau` and Mau-Ra-Yau` are completely unrelated, as though one is a sacred proper noun, and the other is just a word that means "the-lords". They want us to believe that the sacred proper noun MauR-Yau` (MarYah as they say) just coincidentally falls into the same root as the one for "the-lord" Mau-Rau`. They want us to believe the impossible.

In their wildest imaginations, if all their assumptions were correct, the farthest they could ever take the word is "Lord God", a slightly more embellished placeholder than "the-Lord". Yet they market it as some sacred proper noun, even a test of one's theological belief. As though your entrance into heaven is dependant upon you believing their version of MarYah.

A significant reason for me learning to do my own translation of the Peshitta NT, is to get away from the hype and pseudo doctrine being marketed on the internet, and sadly even on sites like this.


Shlama akhi Jerry,


while i understand your reason entirely for doing your own translations, and respect it, as well as your hesitation linguistically on the Marya/MarYa side, i would like to see why you don't accept the possibility that MARYA could really just be the compound MAR+YAH, as the language would indeed allow for such a reading. curious to know your thoughts on this.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
Shlama Akhi Jerry

Aren't you making a bit much of this? Who ever implied that your salvation depends on your acceptance of the MarYah interpretation?

I think we can agree on what MarYah is: an obscure, though significant title used for God alone.

I think we've also come to the conclusion that it is not the Emphatic of lord, which is clearly demonstrable as Mara.

One last question; are you really comparing a singular form with a plural form?

Shamasha
Reply
Burning one Wrote:Shlama akhi Jerry,

while i understand your reason entirely for doing your own translations, and respect it, as well as your hesitation linguistically on the Marya/MarYa side, i would like to see why you don't accept the possibility that MARYA could really just be the compound MAR+YAH, as the language would indeed allow for such a reading. curious to know your thoughts on this.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Burning One,

Though I referred to it somewhat disparagingly before, I haven't ruled out the possibility of a compound word. If MAR = Lord, and YAH = God, then what you have, IMO, is "Lord-God". FWIW, I would want to make it "the-Lord-God", and in at least two instances (Matthew), "a-Lord-God"; in other words, an emphatic.

I remain a bit skeptical on the compound word, but I can't argue against its contextual fit.
Reply
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jerry

Aren't you making a bit much of this? Who ever implied that your salvation depends on your acceptance of the MarYah interpretation?

Shamasha
They know who they are.
Reply
I read the position in certain posts (perhaps my own, I don't remember) that, in effect, those who do not believe in the Divinity of the Messiah aren't saved. While it's not really the type of debate I care to have on this forum, nevertheless it is an established doctrine of orthodoxy.

In any case, one can believe in the Divine Nature of the Messiah, without subscribing to the MarYah theory. I suppose that is more a matter of linguistic debate, despite its potential theological implications.

My main point of contention is the incorrect assertion that the form is in the Emphatic. That interferes with established grammar, as any speaker today will tell you. And it is totally without support in the primary texts.

Perhaps the obscure nature of the word is a sign for us to appreciate the uniqueness of it.

+Shamasha
Reply
Jerry said: "If MAR = Lord, and YAH = God, then what you have, IMO, is "Lord-God". FWIW, I would want to make it "the-Lord-God"

I would not complain if you made your version of the Peshitta read that way...since Yah is GOD, The Word... and is also Lord of Lord's and King of King's.

Paul,

How many instances are there of the name/title MarYah, when it is refering to Yahshua in the New Testament? David Bauscher says it is 32 times, but I can't find that many.
Reply
But do we agree that all dictionaries are wrong on this to have 'Lord' or LORD for MRY instead of Lord-Yah or Lord God or whatever other variation?
Reply
distazo Wrote:But do we agree that all dictionaries are wrong on this to have 'Lord' or LORD for MRY instead of Lord-Yah or Lord God or whatever other variation?

Any dictionary or lexicon listing MRYA as the Emphatic for MRA is incorrect.

Mar Ephraem from the 4th century, rather than trying to define it, said it's an acronym that stands for:

Meem: Marutha ("lordship")
Resh: Rabbutha ("majesty")
Yodh-Aleph: Ethya ("self-existence')

The last part is the telling. Here Mar Ephraem tells us plainly that he believed the Yodh-Aleph (which are the only two letters he grouped together in the acronym) stood for the name of God, YHWH, which clearly means "self-existent" in Hebrew.

Not too different from our little theory, or is it identical?

Case solved? Debate settled ?

+Shamasha
Reply
Shlama akhi Paul,


wow, this is a great ancient testimony to how the term was understood. i'm thinking EHYEH from the Hebrew with Mar Ephraem's yodh-alaph "self-existent" makes perfect sense. if it was understood as such from so long ago, in addition to the other evidence already provided, then there really is no reason to believe otherwise. there's got to be an article in the works for all this evidence to be presented!

interestingly, i recall reading in a old midrash somewhere that Messiah was actually supposed to be called "YHWH" - so even to the ancient Hebrew mind such a thought was not anathema / kherem. why should it be to us?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)