Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possible Error in Peshitta 1Co. 5:8? - Leavened Bread
Dear Chuck,

Thanks for the response, and I apologize for the delay. I'm just seeing your message tonight. Hope you are well.

"In all humility, and in the love of Mshikha, the conclusion you have come to, is mistaken, as you haven't looked at everything in The Holy Scriptures, carefully."

Well I'm definitely open to be corrected. And I certainly "haven't looked at everything in the The Holy Scriptures, carefully." I just pray that MarYah will allow me to continue studying them. But I assume that you are using this as your basis to disagree with me...

"The Bread that was eaten that night... was "Lakhma", and that is the regular Aramaic term used for bread, not the term used for "unleavened bread"."

I believe that I've heard this argument before, but you didn't provide me with any evidence. Feel free to let me know if you disagree, as we are brothers; but please come with chapter and verse if you are going to tell me that I'm mistaken. Let me know if you find any flaws in my reasoning, as iron sharpens iron:

Peshitta "NT" uses "lakhma" 98 times or so, and after searching every single occurrence, it seems that without some sort of context, there is no way to know if "lakhma" refers to leavened or unleavened bread. It just means "bread," and therefore--even at this point--there is no basis for claiming that Meshikha ate "leavened" bread.

Now, Aramaic "lakhma" seems to be the equivalent of Hebrew "lechem" (cf. Joh 6:31, Exo 16:15). Both words are generic words for "bread" and need qualifiers, or adjectives to describe what kind of bread. In Hebrew the adjectives are "matsa" (unleavened) and "chametz" (leavened); and in Aramaic they are "patira" (unleavened) and "khemira" (leaven). These are adjectives but are actually used as nouns 99% of the time.

There are a couple of rare instances that prove my point, though. In Exo 29:2, the Hebrew reads "lechem matsot" (unleavened bread), using the word "matsa" to modify "lechem" (bread) so that we know it is specifically "unleavened bread." The Peshitta Tanakh translates it as "lakhma patira," showing the same exact thing.

There is also another place (Lev 7:13) where we find, in Hebrew, "lechem chametz" (leavened bread). Here the Peshitta Tanakh translates it as "lakhma khmya." So we have two passages of Scripture (Exo 29:2 and Lev 7:13) that prove that "lechem / lakhma" simply are generic terms for "bread." In almost every other place, the terms "matsa / patira" are used as nouns for "unleavened bread" (e.g. Exo 12:8 ff., Lev 2:4-5).

Now, read the 98 occurrences of "lakhma" in the Peshitta "NT", and tell me if you find one single place where the context requires us to understand that the "bread" was leavened or unleavened. None exist that I'm aware of, and "lakhma" just means "bread."

Now what I find ironic is that Matthew used the specific term for "unleavened" to describe the very event that you are claiming had "leaven." Matthew calls it "Unleavened Bread" (דפטירא - Mat 26:17), and my previous post demonstrated that all three synoptic Gospels plainly state that it was the Passover (Mat 26:19-21, Mar 14:16-18, Luk 22:7-8). John's Gospel agrees when understanding the historical context, as I even showed from two Christian expositors.

Therefore, 4 out of 4 Gospels--100% of the evidence shows that Yeshua kept the Torah-based Passover. Granted, I wasn't there to see what type of "bread" it was, but it should be obvious in light of the fact that it was "Passover," which Matthew metonymically referred to as פטירא - "UNleavened bread."

And unless you want to put a stain on Meshikha, claiming that he violated the Torah by eating leaven during Passover, then I recommend reevaluating the evidence carefully. "Lakhma" is just a generic term for "bread," and there was no need for Matthew to call it "unleavened bread" redundantly anymore than I would ask someone to "Pass me the "unleavened" bread," while sitting at a Passover meal where only unleavened bread is eaten.

As to Gregory's previous comment...

"as well as having Yeshua die after the Passover lambs were killed, not at the same time, if Yeshua did indeed eat the slaughtered Passover lamb the night before."

I see no reason to believe that he had to die at an exact moment, per se, as thousands of lambs being killed would have taken a few hours at least. And according to the Talmud, I believe it is, a tradition may have even begun where lambs were killed over a much larger timeframe--a dozen hours or more.

It is historically inaccurate to assume that Yeshua had to die when one particular lamb was slaughtered. I'm not aware of any command, or statement in Scripture that indicated that Yeshua must die exactly at a certain time. He never said "The son of man will die exactly when the 1,000th Passover lamb is slaughtered," though we know he is likened to the Passover lamb.

Of course, I'm open to correction, but I would like it to be from Scripture, or from good historical sources that provide context to Scripture--but not just church tradition. You want me to put my trust in Meshikha. Well then, "Jeshu answered, and said to them, Why also do ye transgress the commandment of Aloha for the sake of your tradition?" (Mat 15:3)


Messages In This Thread
RE: Possible Error in Peshitta 1Co. 5:8? - Leavened Bread - by Thomas - 12-05-2015, 06:49 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)