An important distinction in the Aramaic text

[distazo]

Here we have context helping us.
Ps. 131:2-3
" ..thank to the
God of Gods (Alaha d'alahe)
thank to the
Lord of Lords (Marya d'maravata)"
Clearly means that Marya means Lord.

Good point.
I abandonded the idea that marya stands for Lord Yah. But there is a very important side-node. I read from a well known source here, the 'linguistic evidence' that marya is not unique for YHWH at all.

When translating the Hebrew scriptures Jewish scribes have followed a long standing policy to not directly represent the Name of God but rather to substitute it with a foreign term that equates to lord or master. Certain voices1 in the Peshitta field of study have promoted a novel theory that the Aramaic term MRYA (m?rya), which means "the lord", is instead a direct representation of the personal Name of (YHWH). This theory is a slight-of-hand trick, an illusion, used to support the erroneous doctrine that Yeshua and YHWH are one and the same being or person. Those not familiar with Aramaic grammar may be easily convinced that the Aramaic Peshitta supports this blasphemy.

There are some groups, which I can call cults, including Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Moslems, who deny the holy trinity. This one above, especially, just sees Yeshu as a human, not as God. No wonder why he thinks that to apply 'marya' as Yah to Jesus is blasphemy!

In fact, EVEN the Greek supports this idea, through kurios!

This is not 'grammatical evidence' but theological evidence.

Take for instance 1 Peter 2:3. "You have tasted and seen that the Lord is gracious".
This is a citation of Psalms 34:8.
This clearly speaks about YHWH.
Also Paul applied YHWH as the Messiah (who is Yeshu)
1 Corinthians 10:4

And also take Zacharia 10:2. "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith YHWH"

Clearly, this is and has been Yeshu!

So, theologically, it is not wrong to write that Jesus is YHWH or MarYah.
However, not a pen or a book can convince, but just holy spirit can. We should leave it to the reader instead of forcing this idea of 'hypostasis' or trinity into a translation of any NT.

In the Latin (vulgate, the Comma Johanneum), we see that people had to be 'convinced' by writing this mystery, while the Original Bible did not describe this. So, if spirit lacks, we I expect human additions, but these are not necessary at all for inspired people who would understand that YHWH is THE Lord of All and the Aleph and the Taf.

Last but not least argument.
Yes, The POT has Lord of Lords as Marya di marwata.
We have such naming convention (Lord of gods) for the Greek god Zeus too!
In Acts 14:12,13
If 'marya' just means 'Lord' why is it then, not written as
Marya di Alahe?
No, it says:
"Mare di Alahe. "

So, I still do not consider kurios and marya to be equivalent words in two languages.

what about that ipostaryuk? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->