Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MarYah
#16
Thanks for the link Texas rat it was a great read.

I'm inclined in believing that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic rather than in Greek. When I started to get really involved in the study of the Scriptures something told me that the Greek was not the original (this is before I even had heard about the Aramaic New Testament), what let me to believe this are verses like, Mark 5:41, Matthew 27:46 and John 1:41, I thought that it was interesting that the Greek text had to give definitions of this words which to my eyes proved that the Greek text was a copy of the original text which was in another language (which I didn't even know what language this would have been, I speculated that it would had been in Hebrew) but now I know that YESHUA spoke Aramaic so that would be the language.

Hope to learn more about this.
Reply
#17
Seekerofknowledge Wrote:Thanks for the link Texas rat it was a great read.

I'm inclined in believing that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic rather than in Greek. When I started to get really involved in the study of the Scriptures something told me that the Greek was not the original (this is before I even had heard about the Aramaic New Testament), what let me to believe this are verses like, Mark 5:41, Matthew 27:46 and John 1:41, I thought that it was interesting that the Greek text had to give definitions of this words which to my eyes proved that the Greek text was a copy of the original text which was in another language (which I didn't even know what language this would have been, I speculated that it would had been in Hebrew) but now I know that YESHUA spoke Aramaic so that would be the language.

Hope to learn more about this.
seekerofknowledge,
if you like to study this subject, other than continuing to read the ativities on this site, I have posted a colloection of documents covering the subject from head to toe @: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://independent.academia.edu/willbrinsonferguson">https://independent.academia.edu/willbrinsonferguson</a><!-- m -->
.
Reply
#18
It?s a blessing to ponder this mrya question through eyes focused on the Peshitta.

Looking through Matthew and John and Revelation, I see mrya (?the lord?) is used only once in John but frequently in Matthew. It?s also used frequently in the Book of Revelation. And in all three books it is used consistently and exclusively in reference to the Father, except in these passages where it refers to Yahshua the messiah:
  • Revelation 22:20, ?Come mrya Yahshua?

    Matthew 22:42-46, ?Yahshua asked them and said, ?What do you say about the messiah? Whose son is he?? They said to him, ?The son of David.? He said to them, ?Yet how does David spiritually call him mrya? For he said, ?Mrya to my lord sit at my right until I place your enemies under your feet.? Therefore, if David called him mrya how is he his son?? And no man was able to give him an answer.?

    See also, Matthew 3:3, ?For this is he about whom it was said by way of Isaiah the prophet: the voice of one crying in the desert: prepare the way of mrya and make straight his paths.?

By contrast, ?mry? (?my lord?), ?mrh? (?his/her lord?), ?mrn? (?our lord?), and ?mrhhun? (?their lord?) are used more frequently and often generically (including by Yahshua about others).

Another important variation of the root word here is mra, which is a general reference ? it can be a reference to the Father (e.g., Matthew 11:25) or Yahshua (e.g., Revelation 17:14) or lesser masters (e.g., Matthew 13:52 in reference to the scribe who is master of a house). For a thought-provoking contrast between mra and mrya, compare Revelation 11:4 (mra of all his earth) with Revelation 15:3 (mrya? king of this age/world).

Now before I began this line-by-line study I presumed that mrya was not a word-equivalence reference to YHVH, but now that I?ve read the text for myself in each occurrence in these gospels, I feel the exactness of the Peshitta has corrected me (once again).

In the word ?mrya? I also see wordplay toward YHVH. For example, note that the Aramaic word amr means ?speak? and ya is a traditional reference to Yah. So when the word mrya is utilized in reference/reverence to Yahshua, then the wordplay meaning is ?speech of Yah?. And ?lamb of Yah? works too. So, through context we?d be able to discern a meaning that takes the shape of our individual focus.

?And they did not know that he spoke to them about the Father. Yahshua said to them again, 'when lifted up is the son of man then you will know that I am (?ana ana?) and a thing from my own will not do I but as has taught me my Father likewise that speak I.? John 8:16-17.

?And he was clothed with a garment dipped in blood and was called his name the word of Alha.? Revelation 19:13.

It is written in Genesis 1 that YHVH spoke light and this world and our heavens into existence. The physics of light is fundamentally explained by probabilities as waves and focus. Read for example Quantum Electrodynamics by Richard Feynman. It?s a wonderful compliment to Peshitta bible studies, especially if you also consider the electromagnetism of the heart.

In this mrya study it seems like there is a lot of depth as the posters here are highlighting. I would recommend being open to multiple layers of meaning. One example is highlighted in an important post above -- consider the adjective nature of ?ya? that can emphasize a word?s action synonymous with its present character. From the word mrya we might therefore wonder - is the destiny of a powerful person (a ?master?) encoded in the very movements of his present? Mystery. Even if ?mrya? means ?YHVH? in every context, how do we really search the meaning of YHVH? More mystery.

Consider Revelation 21:22-23. The use of mrya here is thought-provoking given the sentence structures. Where does one place the phrase ?and to the lamb? (ul amra) between the verses? Given the lamed-hey (singular ?it? referring only to the city) in Rev 21:23, the passage suggests that the lamb has become one with mrya Alha, in such a way that the lamb is the lamp through which the glory of Alha shines. So they are distinct (as light and lamp are distinct), but they work together and in unison as one to the observer. Indeed, we humans often refer to lamps simply as ?light? rather than take the (space)time to specifically describe the electromagnetic foundations of light that cause the lamp to shine.

I suppose we can read these verses about light carefully (including also Revelation 22:5 and John 1) but understanding of oneness and light is inherently mysterious - is Yahshua the light or lamp or both? Hmmm.

The lamp of the body is the eye. Matthew 6:22. If the eye is peshitta? love it!
Reply
#19
gregglaser-

Don't ever stop Posting. If you go to the store and it's an interesting trip, tell us about it.
I learn something important whenever you Post.

Thanx,

CW
Reply
#20
Hello Charles - thank you, but that?s too kind.

[Image: mitch-store-joke.jpg]

Okay, so I feel like I should write something intelligent. Here?s an attempt? notice that every use of the Aramaic word pSht in the gospel of Matthew is followed by the letter aleph (pShta) from a hand guided by Yahshua, and in two of five of these uses Yahshua advises the people to not reveal the miracle. Matthew 8:3-4; 12:13-16. Is this a wordplay suggesting perhaps that the peshitta was meant to be a carefully guarded power at least some of the time? What is pSht without ya? What is mr without ya?

Discerning questions of light by contrasting gospel words is really enjoyable as it builds trust in an orderly salvation from YHVH. He is mrya.

Consider whether the reference to scattering sheep in John 10 is analogous to the scattering of light in physics.

[Image: sheep-with-shepherd.jpg]

YHVH is the gate, Yahshua is the shepherd, and the flock are the faithful. The flock are like lamp light, and the wolves are like the obstacles that scatter the light/sheep. When the lamps/eyes are focused, the light shines coherently where YHVH wills. But when the sheep are scattered, the white light dims and the wolf is free to ?roam?; meanwhile a different eye pierces that darkness demanding tribute.

[Image: all_seeing_eye_usd.jpg]
[Image: lupa_coin.jpg]

We learn in John that Yahshua is toward (luTh) the Father. So is the Paraclete. In John 13:34-35 Yahshua commands us to love one to one (Khd l Khd) and one toward one (Khd luTh Khd). Consider that in doing this, the Spirit enters the electromagnetic connection of love between faithful humans, and dwells there, so by loving one another we face toward (luTh) Alha, a virtue emphasized in John 1:1.

Focus is very powerful in defining reality. Trust is a kind of mental focus ? it allows Yahshua to heal the sick (Matthew 17:21), and even to relieve sin (John 16:9) through the power of YHVH. Matthew 13:58 (?he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief?) suggests the possibility of a causal relationship between trust and spiritual power.

?Trust in Alha and trust in me? he says in John 14:1 because Yahshua is in Alha, and toward Alha. These words are simple ? and yet they point toward physics and geometry the deeper you search (as discussed at this forum in other posts).

Does John 14:12 tell us that the closer that Yahshua goes to the Father, the more powerful he becomes? I think so, draw closer with trust. To your perspective you are given the gift to focus on that which you choose ? if we?re inclined (literally) we do not choose to scatter the sheep by inserting/being Roman obstacles that distract focus from trust in YHVH. We read and know logically that obstacles are necessary for a saga, and woe to him by whom they come/sign (aTha). Matthew 18:7.

Ultimately you get to a point where you need spirit to answer these questions and provide foundational meaning. John 14:4 aurKha (the way) is a wordplay for ruKha (spirit) because the spirit is the way toward Yahshua. John 14:6, 14:17. It?s so beautiful in the Peshitta ? so many examples? How about John 6:63 that has a related wordplay ? mhna is like believe. So Yahshua is saying that the body does not believe anything (as he speaks of signs of blood and flesh, only the spirit sees the meaning beyond) -- so the profit in John 6:63 is spiritual life. This Roman world tends to have a different profit in mind/focus at the moment.

In Hebrew, Yahshua's name means Yah's fortune. In Aramaic, he is Yah's rock.
Reply
#21
Gregglaser-

I'm afraid you are just going to have to accept the compliment. Your Post on Matthew 7 was not only on point, it was TIMED properly. I don't know why, it just was. Same here!

"So when the word mrya is utilized in reference/reverence to Yahshua, then the wordplay meaning is ?speech of Yah?. And ?lamb of Yah? works too..."
Yes! This is "at least" historically Semitic. I referenced Pettinato and his book on Ebla in another Post. He conjectures that a word such as "Nimrod" being a construction from Nmmr-Ha'ad or "Panther of Ha'ad" (Again, if I remember the details of the spelling correctly). "Lamb of Yah" fits. Just so!

"Consider Revelation 21:22-23. The use of mrya here is thought-provoking given the sentence structures. Where does one place the phrase ?and to the lamb? (ul amra) between the verses?..."
Right where it is!
Why? Because "Immar" <=> "_____". Which Mishmarot Service Group was on duty on the Passovers of 4 BCE and 9CE? (Hint: Espanak's Tables). Why are there 12 years separating these 2 dates? Does "12 years" relate to "The Woman with the 12 Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter?"

"...we do not choose to scatter the sheep by inserting/being Roman obstacles that distract focus from trust in YHVH..."
GG, believe me when I tell you, I agree. The Romans introduced huge obstacles to understanding. If you can strip away these obstacles, what's left?
That's what I am trying to do. I'm not sure of the whole Story but there appears to be a great deal of the House of Eleazar, especially the 16th member of Eleazar.

"In Hebrew, Yahshua's name means Yah's fortune. In Aramaic, he is Yah's rock."
That is why figuring out "Peter" is so important.
"Peter" -"On this rock I will build my church" - is important to me.

Thanks again, GG. Just accept the compliment. Please.

CW
Reply
#22
gregglaser Wrote:Matthew 13:58 (?he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief?) suggests the possibility of a causal relationship between trust and spiritual power.

Hi Greg,

I love your insights. But on the above, I have a small remark if I understood you well.
If you meant that Yeshu _could_ not do miracles as if his power lacked _for them_, please read again. It says -did not do- not -could not do-. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I've understood that healing is unconditional just as the gospel is. It is for _everyone_. But if someone refuses the message/gospel, we do not force it upon them and *so* it goes with healing. I understood that Yeshu was regarded as just a carpenter, so they did not accept anything from him, and thus he did not do miracles.

We (as believers also can do healing) and Yeshu did not force anything upon people.
The power of healing, is also not because of the faith of the sick one, but because of the faith of the healer. Yeshu never refused or failed any healing IF somebody asked.
Rahm?k
Reply
#23
Smart clarifications Rahmuk.

Your follow-up really helps point to a core question - from where does Yahshua receive his power? How is he mrya? Does a head/master have power independently of the body/followers? In YHVH's orderly kingdom, is wine poured if there is no glass/believer or if the glass is upside down? One perspective is that Yahshua is inside (and toward) the body of Alha and YHVH is the head, meanwhile our saga here on earth is about forming our own patterned representation of that relationship (where Yahshua is the head, and we are parts of his body). Look to the example of the golden ratio (phi) to see how life is evidenced by repeating patterns that do not collapse - in the bible we read of the Alha kingdom that is not divided against itself (like phi, it doesn't collapse). In many ways I see the bible is a way to make math interesting, and vice-versa.

[Image: golden-ratio-10.jpg]

Continuing the mrya theme, if we put an additional 'yod' and 'hey' in peshitta, it becomes phishitta.

Now a traditional human body & head is a perspective. A complimentary perspective in viewing the human is energetically, where an ideal whole flows with oneness and purpose and yet represents the character of contrast in its components/waves. With oneness, the traditional view and complimentary view utilize the same language. In John 16:25 notice Eayn bgla ("eyes in waves"), as Yahshua describes how he will speak of the Father in the future, rather than in comparisons/parables (plata).

The Aramaic of Matthew 13:58 is ula Eabd Thmn Khla sgyaa mtl la hymnuThhun. Your clarification points the mtl ("because") toward Yahshua's will beginning the sentence. Whereas my original question of causality pointed forward in the sentence to the unbelievers. I like to think your conclusion is right and pointing in the logical direction, but for better or worse the possibility remains. So once again the matter is put to the focus of the observer.
Reply
#24
gregglaser Wrote:Smart clarifications Rahmuk.

Hi Gregg, my name is Egbert.

Rahmuk means: "Your friend" if I'm not wrong <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#25
Right or wrong, I getcha.

Rahmuk,
Greg
Reply
#26
For a comprehensive research article on the subject of MarYah in the Peshitta NT please see <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbibleperspectives.com/uploads/Peshitta_MariYah_Research_Report_ed._2012.pdf">http://www.aramaicbibleperspectives.com ... ._2012.pdf</a><!-- m --> The author welcomes comments from serious scholars. Shlama Amkhon.
Reply
#27
jdefrancisco Wrote:For a comprehensive research article on the subject of MarYah in the Peshitta NT please see <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicbibleperspectives.com/uploads/Peshitta_MariYah_Research_Report_ed._2012.pdf">http://www.aramaicbibleperspectives.com ... ._2012.pdf</a><!-- m --> The author welcomes comments from serious scholars. Shlama Amkhon.

Enjoying your research study, it's very thorough!

I see immediately that I overlooked the use of mrya in Rev 13:16 referring to human 'masters' who accept the mark of the beast. Thanks for the correction! I just examined the Crawford codex as well to verify, and you're correct, it says "mrya" with double markings above the resh (one for the resh, and one extra). So that puts my post above in error here:

gregglaser Wrote:in all three books it is used consistently and exclusively in reference to the Father, except in these passages where mryarefers to Yahshua the messiah: [omitted]

...

Now before I began this line-by-line study I presumed that mrya was not a word-equivalence reference to YHVH, but now that I?ve read the text for myself in each occurrence in these gospels, I feel the exactness of the Peshitta has corrected me (once again).

Thanks again for the correction! I especially liked your statements in your paper, "The above comments are not intended to be conclusive, but are only given here as an invitation to further study. Perhaps deeper investigation into the [Aramaic] language and manuscripts will provide insights to understanding each of them more clearly." Well said, looking forward to reading more of your studies ...

Greg
Reply
#28
You may know this already, but The Book of Revelation is not part of The Aramaic Peshitta New Testament, even though many in the West have added it to their version of what they call "the Peshitta". Its text was much later translated from the Greek text into Aramaic. Also the word/name Alaha, while most often used in the Aramaic NT for GOD, can also be used for others who are not GOD, but in the plural form.

Gregg, where can I examine the Crawford Codex? Do you have a complete copy to view?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#29
Thirdwoe Wrote:You may know this already, but The Book of Revelation is not part of The Aramaic Peshitta New Testament, even though many in the West have added it to their version of what they call "the Peshitta". Its text was much later translated from the Greek text into Aramaic. Also the word/name Alaha, while most often used in the Aramaic NT for GOD, can also be used for others who are not GOD, but in the plural form.

Gregg, where can I examine the Crawford Codex? Do you have a complete copy to view?

Shlama,
Chuck

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the note, I just sent you a PM with the details for ordering Crawford from Rylands.

As you know I'm reviewing and making a transcript of the Codex now. I love it! I do find myself agreeing with David Bauscher who makes the case that Crawford evidences the original Aramaic, as he writes for example: "we cannot find any Greek text, or combination of Greek texts that could be used to translate into the Crawford text. It just does not work that way; the converse scenario can be shown, and I have done so."

I wonder if back in biblical times (just like today) there were faithful people who only used mrya to refer to the Father, and others who allowed the word in certain instances to be expressive of 'human masters'. And how much would dialect and pronunciation and denomination be relevant to that sort of thing? It seems to me the matter is supposed to be resolved through an unfolding saga and learning process... a related example would be how the blind man in John 8 says ana ana, but the pharisees knew he wasn't trying to claim the great "I am" status because they understood the words in context; and then when Yahshua said ana ana in all these mysterious contexts, the pharisees stumbled again (so they stumbled in both meanings, probably to demonstrate another example of hypocrisy). How does one navigate the context of mrya without stumbling? How does Yahshua empower the blind to see? I know I can't see the first original Aramaic texts (they were given to time), and yet I read the blind man who puts his trust in Yahshua, he sees...
Reply
#30
Shlama Gregg, thanks for the info on ordering a copy of the Crawford Codex.

If the Book of Revelation was originally written in Aramaic, it wasn't part of the NT collection of scrolls given to The Church of the East by the Shlikhe (Apostles). If it was 1st written in Aramaic, it was either written late in the 1st century (90s A.D.), which is disputed and problematic for its content, or, it was just not sent out to, or intended for, the other churches besides the 7 in Asia Minor at the time it was given (late 60s A.D.)

The Church of the East as late as the mid 1800s A.D. hadn't any knowledge of it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)