Nazarene Space

What are opinions on the diety of Moshiach, and the trinity?

Views: 362

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My own opinion here is that Yeshua is NEVER CALLED YHWH - He is AN ELOAH, just like Angels.
He is absolutely El - he is absolutely God, insofar God can also mean an Angel.
The word El is mistranslated "God" according to what a god is in western culture - Yeshua is El, but he is not YHWH - he is never called YHWH.

YHWH is perfect, and therefore cannot be improved. Yeshua / Yahushua actually grew, he inherited his Father's kingdom, he was made perfect through suffering.

Yes, even the Messiah was required to suffer while he was on this earth. This wasn't suffering simply for the sake of suffering, but rather suffering with a purpose and goal. This suffering contributed to Yeshua becoming complete, as the author of Hebrews tells us twice:

HEBREWS 2:9 But we see Yahushua, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. (NIV)

HEBREWS 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Yahushua offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (ESV)

If the Messiah had to suffer in order to learn obedience and be made "perfect" or "complete," why should we expect anything different? Is a slave greater than his master?
No, the best we should expect is to be like our Master (Matt. 10:24-25).

Since the Father decreed that our Master Yeshua had to suffer in order to be perfected, we too should expect God the Father to put us through trials and tribulations in order for us to reach spiritual maturity and attain godly character (Jam. 1:2-4).

The primary difference between Yeshua and us is that he had a preexistent relationship with YHVH the heavenly Father and fully understood God's will and what was expected of him. We, unfortunately, do not always know God's will for us. We can only determine it by studying the Scriptures, developing a relationship with God through regular prayer, and asking Him to reveal His will to us through His Holy Spirit.
i agree Jesus is God, a false messiah as stated by John 2.

YeweShua is Messiah!



He does not have to be a Diety to bring salvation, what he did as a man is suffecint for our salvation this is a silly argument, this brings niether correction or reproof. We need to correctly divide the Word to hit the mark, not define YEWE or YeweShua, they are defined by the Torah itself. This argument is an example of western mindset of human intellect in public forum leading those on milk to a false conclusion, and we are not there next to them to assist their lack of knowledge. Anaiah that is why your friend left because of these weighty topics which they are not ready to recieve,

Having any other Elohim before My face is an abomination.

Shalom
Messiah as YHWH

The deity of Messiah is very easy to show from the Scriptures. The simplest way to show the deity of Messiah in the Scriptures is to point to instances where the “New Testament” quotes passages from the Tanak (“Old Testament”) and applies them to the Messiah.

For example in John 19:37, Zech. 12:10 is quoted:

But when they came to Yeshua, they saw that he was dead already
and did not break his legs.
But one of the soldiers stuck him in his side with a spear
and immediately blood and water came forth,…
For these things happened that the scripture might be fulfilled
which said, A bone of him will not be broken.(Ps. 34:21(20))
And again another scripture that said, They will look at him
whom they pierced. (Zech 12:10)

But now let us look at Zechariah 12:10 in context:

The burden of the word of YHWH concerning Israel.
The saying of YHWH, who stretched forth the heavens,
And laid the foundation of the earth,
And formed the spirit of man within him…
I will pour out upon the house of David,
And upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
The spirit of grace and supplication;
And they shall look at Me whom they pierced;
And they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son….
(Zech. 12:1, 10)

The one being pierced in Jn. 19:37 is clearly Yeshua but the one being pierced in Zech. 12:10 is clearly YHWH.

Lets now look at the quotation of Is. 8:14 in Rom. 9:32:

Because it was not from faith but from “Works of the Law”,
for they stumbled at the stumbling stone.
(Rom. 9:32)

Now Paul is clearly referring here it Messiah, but lets now look at Is. 8:14 in context:

YHWH of hosts, Him shall you sanctify; and let Him be your
fear, and let Him be your dread. And He shall be for a sanctuary;
but for a stumbling stone and for a rock of offence
to both the houses of Israel…
(Is. 8:13-14)

Here it is clearly YHWH who is the “stumbling stone”.

OK now lets look at Phil. 2:10-11:

That at the name of Yeshua every knee will bow
that is in heaven or on earth and that is under the earth,
and every tongue will confess that Yeshua the Messiah is YHWH,
to the glory of Eloah the Father.

Here Paul clearly refer to Is. 45:23:

Thus says YHWH…
That unto Me every knee shall bow,
and every tongue shall swear.
(Is. 45:1, 23)

Clearly Paul applies a Tanak passage which clearly speaks of YHWH to the Messiah.

Now lets look at Rom. 10:9, 13:

And if you confess with your mouth our Adon Yeshua,
And you believe in your heart that Eloah raised him from the dead,
you will be saved. …
For all who will call on the name of YHWH will be saved.
(Rom. 10:9, 13)

Here Paul clearly quotes Joel 3:5 (2:32) but applies the passage to Yeshua despite the fact that Joel is clearly here speaking of YHWH.

There are several other examples: James 5:7 clearly speaks of the coming of Messiah as likened to the “former and latter rain” while in Hosea 6:3 this is clearly the coming of YHWH. Likewise Jude 1:14 & 1 Thes. 3:13 refer to the coming of Messiah yet quote 1Enoch 1:9 & Zech. 14:5 which clearly refer to the coming of YHWH. Finally in Mt. 22:41-46 Yeshua himself identifies himself with the “YHWH” at the right hand of “YHWH” in Ps. 110:1-2, 5.



Christian said:
My own opinion here is that Yeshua is NEVER CALLED YHWH - He is AN ELOAH, just like Angels.
He is absolutely El - he is absolutely God, insofar God can also mean an Angel.
The word El is mistranslated "God" according to what a god is in western culture - Yeshua is El, but he is not YHWH - he is never called YHWH.

YHWH is perfect, and therefore cannot be improved. Yeshua / Yahushua actually grew, he inherited his Father's kingdom, he was made perfect through suffering.

Yes, even the Messiah was required to suffer while he was on this earth. This wasn't suffering simply for the sake of suffering, but rather suffering with a purpose and goal. This suffering contributed to Yeshua becoming complete, as the author of Hebrews tells us twice:

HEBREWS 2:9 But we see Yahushua, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. (NIV)

HEBREWS 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Yahushua offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (ESV)

If the Messiah had to suffer in order to learn obedience and be made "perfect" or "complete," why should we expect anything different? Is a slave greater than his master?
No, the best we should expect is to be like our Master (Matt. 10:24-25).

Since the Father decreed that our Master Yeshua had to suffer in order to be perfected, we too should expect God the Father to put us through trials and tribulations in order for us to reach spiritual maturity and attain godly character (Jam. 1:2-4).

The primary difference between Yeshua and us is that he had a preexistent relationship with YHVH the heavenly Father and fully understood God's will and what was expected of him. We, unfortunately, do not always know God's will for us. We can only determine it by studying the Scriptures, developing a relationship with God through regular prayer, and asking Him to reveal His will to us through His Holy Spirit.
All those passages makes Him the Anointd One not an Elohim

Shalom
To help you one, He was from the Tribe of Dawid, two He was King, with ascension to the throne, etc many other factors which made Him the only choice for being Messiah. This list is quite long, with a lack of understanding vague statements shows the lack of muturity in study. King Dawid had to go through many things in order to become King, he was anoited as a child, but years later became King????

No YeweShua was not a mere man, Yahudah has picked many men whom they thought was Mashiyach.

Shalom
He was not a mere man - he was (an) El. Mighty beyond a lesser angel, mighty beyond a man - but the only true power and might in the universe is YHWH.

HEBREWS 5:7 In the days of his flesh, Yahushua offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,

To major points are raised in this passage:
Yahushua (an El in human body) needs to be saved from death.
YHWH does not need to be saved from death, as He cannot truly die. If He wanted to be saved from death, He would simply do so without praying to a higher force for such assistance.

Second point, which is actually more critical:
YHWH does not grow or change - He is the same today, tomorrow, yesterday, outside of time.
Yahushua grows, changes, learns, becomes. He did so perfectly and without flaw - and he has become the source of eternal salvation.

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
if Yahushua was not Elohim, then Elohim did not save us. A mere man did. If a mere man can save us, why can't a mere animal save us? It is clear that sacrifices pointed to the one sacrifice that only Elohim had the authority to make of Himself. there is nothing special about Yahushua if He was not Elohim. The truly great and marvelous thing about His life is that He was Elohim, and that He could sin.
James Trimm said:
The Ruach is the Mother, she "came upon" Miriam so that she could serve as her surrogate.

If "The Ruach is the Mother", then why did Yeahua say ?.

Jhn 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper [fn] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
Jhn 16:8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;

Jhn 16:12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Jhn 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
Jhn 16:14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
Jhn 16:15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
From my book Hebraic Roots Commentary on Yochanan (John) at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

16:7 comforter - see comments to Jn. 14:16

16:13 ...when the Spirit of Truth comes she will guide you in all truth...

The Torah is truth (Ps. 119:142, 151). The Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of Torah which guides us in observing all the Torah. Ezekiel 18:29-32 speaks of having a new heart and a new spirit. Ezekiel 36:26-27 speaks similarly:

A new heart also will I give you,
and a new spirit will I put within you:
and I will take away the stony heart
out of your flesh,
and I will give you a heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you,
and cause you to walk in my statutes,
and you shall keep my judgments, and do them.

she will guide you - One problem that presents itself in translating the New Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic into English is that of the gender of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). English is very different from Hebrew and Aramaic. To begin with English has three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter (i.e. he, she and it). Hebrew and Aramaic have no neuter gender. In Hebrew and Aramaic everything is either a “he” or a “she” and nothing is an “it”. Also gender plays a much more important role in Hebrew and in Aramaic than in English. In English gender is usually only an issue when dealing with pronouns. But in Hebrew and in Aramaic nouns and verbs are also masculine or feminine. And while there are no true adjectives in Hebrew (nouns are used as adjectives), noun modifiers must agree in gender with the noun. Now the Hebrew word RUACH (Aramaic RUCHA) is grammatically feminine as is the phrase Ruach HaKodesh.

Now in English the Ruach is often referred to as “he” or “it” as also in the Greek New Testament. However this seems very odd indeed to the Semitic mind. The ancient Nazarenes believed, not only that the Ruach HaKodesh is more than a force or breath, they actually belived the Ruach HaKodesh to be a Heavenly Mother. These ancient Nazarenes used an apocryphal Gospel called The Goodnews According to the Hebrews which taught this very idea. While this apocryphal Gospel is now lost, several quotes from it have survived in the writings on the ancient "Church Fathers." One of these quotes, found in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah, tells the story of Yeshua's immersion (baptism) this way:

And it came to pass
when the Lord was come up out of the water,
the whole fount of the Holy Spirit
descended and rested upon him,
and said to him, "MY SON,
in all the prophets was I waiting for you
that you should come, and I might rest in you.
For you are my rest, you are MY first BEGOTTEN SON,
that reigns forever."
[Jerome- On Is. 11:2]

Here it is the Ruach HaKodesh, not the Father, who is calling Yeshua "MY SON" apparantly refering to Psalm 2:7 see also Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5).

Another important quote from the Gospel according to the Hebrews may be found in a number of anciant writings. In this quote Yeshua is reported as saying:

"Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit,
take me by one of my hairs and carry me
away to the great mountain Tabor." (compare Ezkl. 8:3)
[Origen- On Jn. 2:12; Hom. on Jer. 15:4;
Jerome- On Micah 7:6; On. Is. 40:9; On Ezkl. 16:13]

There can be no doubt that here the Ruach HaKodesh is seen as a Heavenly Mother. Now you may be thinking that these concepts are very strange, but they are not so strange in the context of Judaism. To begin with, in Hebrew and Aramaic Ruach HaKodesh is a feminine term, so that in the original language of the Bible, the Ruach HaKodesh is always a "she". Moreover the Jewish Kabbalists taught that there is a Heavenly Mother as
well as a Heavenly Father, as the following quotes from the Encyclopedia Judaica artical on KABBALAH indicate:

References to male and female appear not only in the
symbolism of father and mother, son and daughter...
but also in the striking use of sexual imagery which
is a particular characteristic of the Zohar...
p. 573

The Sefirot Hokhmah and Binah now become the parzufim of
Abba and Imma ("father and mother")...
p. 599

Now regardless of whether this teaching was believed by the Nazarenes, or whether or not it is "Jewish", our understanding of it must be based on the Scriptures (see 2Tim. 3:16-17; 2Pt. 1:19-21).

Now in Romans 1:19-20 we are told that "what may be known of God is manifest in them [mankind] his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [or divine nature]..." then in Rom. 1:26-28 we are told that those who fail to percieve these things may fall into the errors of Homosexuality and Lesbianism. So when in creation were G-d's invisible attributes manifested in man and made clearly seen. The answer is in the Torah, in Gen. 1:26, 27
where we read:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image,
according to Our likeness...
So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

Now following the parallelism of the passage, "Our image"; "Our likeness" and "male and female" appear to be parallel terms.

Also Is. 49:1-8 and Is. 66:13 where YHWH is described as a "mother" who "comforts"
also note that in the NT the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) is called "the comforter" (see notes to Jn. 14:16).

Now it is very clear that the gender of the RUACH has been revised in many passages of the Aramaic to agree with the Hellenistic concept of the Holy Spirit as being either a “he” or an “it”. Thus the pronouns used for the Ruach HaKodesh in Jn. 14-16 in the Peshitta are all masculine. However the hand of revision is very clear. For example while both the Peshitta and Old Syriac have “he” in Jn. 16:8 the Old Syriac has “she” just a few verses further down in 16:13 while the Peshitta has “he”.

Moreover there are many passages in which the Peshitta itself pairs the Ruach HaKodesh with feminine verbs and/or feminine modifiers: Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32, 33; 6:63; 7:39; Acts 8:29, 39; 16:17; Rom. 8:9, 10, 11, 16, 26a, 26b, 1Cor. 3:16; 1Tim. 4:1; 1Pt. 1:11; 4:14 and 1Jn. 5:6. In fact the Peshitta Aramaic of Rom. 8:16 opens with:

And she the Ruach gives testimony….

While it is clear that the Ruach HaKodesh has no literal gender, it is also clear that the Ruach HaKodesh is grammatically and figuratively a “she”.
Also from my Hebraic Roots Commentary on Yochanan (John)
http://www.lulu.com/nazarene
(sorry the Hebrew fonts ended up as gibberish English letters in this post (bot not in the book):

14:16 comforter – As Is. 66:13 states “As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you…” comforter Aramiaic: )+ylqrp This Aramaic word also appears in the Mishna:

He who does even a single religious duty
gets himself a good advocate (or comforter)
(Hebrew: +ylqrp)
he who does even a single transgression
gets himself a prosecutor.
(m.Avot 4:11a)

And in the Talmud it is used to refer to the sin offering::

R. Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? —
[You ask,] ‘for what purpose does a sin-offering come?’
Surely in order to make atonement! —
Rather, [the question is:]
Why does it come before the burnt-offering?
[Because it is] like an intercessor (+ylqrp) who enters
[to appease the King]: When the intercessor (+ylqrp)
has appeased [him], the gift follows.
(b.Zev. 7b)

The Jewish Dictionary states:

…The sin offering is like the parclete (+ylqrp) before God,
it interceded for man and is followed by another…
a thank offering for the pardon obtained…
the two daily burnt offerings are called ‘the two parcletes’…
Jewish Dictionary pp. 514-515

This word is also used in the Aramaic Targum of Job in Job. 16:20 & 33:23 as a translation for the Hebrew word Clm ”one who intercedes, an advocate”.

Although this is generally seen as a loan word from Greek, it has been proposed that the word is derived from Semitic parik “to break” and “leta” (there is not) or from parik “apart from” and “leta” (the curse in Persian) or that it is some participle of the Aramaic verb qrp p’rak “to save”.

The Ruach HaKodesh is a )+ylqrp paraklita. The Ruach is a comforter (see comments to Mt. 5:4) who intercedes for us as an advocate before the Father. The Ruach “prays on our behalf” (Rom. 8:26).

See also comments to John 16:13
James Trimm said:
Much of what you say is correct, but some adjustment is needed.

First of all this name "Jesus"... there was no such person, his name was "Yeshua". If you had walked up to him in Jerusalem in his lifetime and called him "Jesus" he would not have recognized the name. In fact it would have sounded very foreign to him, because there is no "J" in Hebrew or Aramaic or even Greek or Latin. "Jesus" has come to be the name that modern Christianity has used to refer to its [false] version of the Messiah "who came to free you from the bondage of the Law" and found a new religion called "Christianity". I see no reason to use a name that was not his, and is attached to theology that is dichotomous to his teaching. The true Messiah was Yeshua who was a Torah advocate, and the very Torah incarnate and who came to be the Messiah of Judaism.

Now lets look at this word "God"... this is especially important because the word itself is key to the discussion of whether or not Yeshua is "God".

The word "God" in English comes from the name of an old pagan god worshiped by the Anglo-Saxons and other old European tribal groups. The term "God" came from a false god that goes all the way back to the ancient Babylonians and Canaanites who was called in Canaanite (and Hebrew) "Gawd" spelled in the KJV as "Gad" meaning "good fortune". One of the titles of Baal (meaning "Lord") was "Baal Gad", "Baal Gawd" or "Baal God". "Baal" means "Lord" so "Baal God" means "The Lord God". When the Anglo-Saxons were "Christianized" they continued to worship "The Lord God" in Temples with Phallic Symbols on top (steeples) which they continued to call CIRCS or as we know them today "Churches". They even continued to celebrate "Easter" (Ishtar was the consort of Baal) each Spring.

So you state that "Jesus is God". I have to agree if we understand correctly that "Jesus" is the false version of Messiah created by Christendom that is the opposite of the True Messiah and came to "free" you from "bondage" to the Law and create a new Torah denying religion to replace the old one, then yes, that "Jesus" is Baal Gawd (The Lord God).

Now the English term "God" is generally used as an equivalent for the Hebrew Elohim (despite the true and original origin of the word "God")) so if the question is, is Yeshua the Messiah Elohim? then obviously the answer is yes. In Hebrew the word ELOHIM has very broad meaning, being used to apply not only to angels, but even to human judges. The real question you want top ask is "Is Yeshua YHWH" and I think it would be clarified "Is Messiah YHWH" since Yeshua had within him two aspects, a human aspect and a divine aspect (the Word incarnate).

Now the answer to this question is one of the deepest mysteries of the Scriptures.

I have treated this subject in detail at:

http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/revelations-concerning...
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-word-of-yhwh-revea...
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-word-of-yhwh-revea...
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-word-of-yhwh-revea...
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-word-of-yhwh-revea...

http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/deity-of-messiah
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/deity-of-messiah?id=21...

You should check out these two books on the subject:

http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-great-mystery-or-h...
http://nazarenespace.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-middle-pillar-a-je...

Edwin Brain said:
Jesus is God.

Jesus is God, but He is also man at the same time. Have a look at Isaiah Ch 48 vs 12-16, but don't read the whole of v 16, just yet, read only, "Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there" (ESV).

Now ask yourself, Who is speaking?, the answer can only be, the Lord our GOD, now read the rest of v 16, "And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.". It is clear then that the one speaking in the first part of this verse must be our Lord Jesus, and none other.. An expanded version follows.

Have a look at the verses of Scripture bellow from which I have removed the last line of verse 16, and tell me who is speaking? ..The answer can only be, non other that the Lord God Almighty Himself, our Father.


Isa 48:12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.
Isa 48:13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.
Isa 48:14 "All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; He shall do His pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
Isa 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; Yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper.
Isa 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. (NKJV).

Now read the last line of verse 16, and tell me who was speaking. "And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have[fn1] sent Me."

Footnotes: 48:16 The Hebrew verb is singular.

Verse 16, could be rendered as, "And now the Father and His Spirit Have[fn1] sent Me."

Could this verse I wonder be what Jesus had in mind when He said.

Jhn 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
Jhn 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Now have a look at John Ch 8, verse 58. Here Jesus identifies Himself as "I AM", the two words are, "ego eimi", and are taken from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT made about 300 BC.

These two words are taken from Exodus Ch 3 v 14, where God told Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel. I AM has sent me to you"... This is the most Sacred, and Holy name/description of the Lord our God it means "I HAVE BEEN WHAT I HAVE BEEN,I AM THAT/WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE". This Title was also understood by the Jews to mean "The perpetually self revealing all existent one".

It was considered so sacred by the Jews, that they were forbidden to pronounce it, when reading Scripture publicly.

There was no doubt in the minds of those who heard Jesus, that He was claiming to be God.

John 10:17-18. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Note. Only God can raise Himself back from the dead.

Who did Isaiah really see?

Isa 6:1 IN the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one cried to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!"
Isa 6:4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 So I said: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King,
The LORD of hosts."

John referring to this passage said.

Jhn 12:37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him,
Jhn 12:38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"*
Jhn 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
Jhn 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them."*
Jhn 12:41 These things Isaiah said when* he saw His glory and spoke of Him

So then just who did Isaiah see?

Jhn 5:21 "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
Jhn 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,
Jhn 5:23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Have a look at the verses bellow, and my comments that follow.

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me,
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.

Rev 1:12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,
Rev 1:13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest.
Rev 1:14 The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire,
Rev 1:15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.
Rev 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, Fear not, I am the first and the last,

When John worshiped the angel, at Rev 22:8, he was told not to do so, but to worship God.. It is abundantly clear that the person described at, Rev 1:12-16, is none other than Jesus Himself, who, you will note does, not rebuke him, but accepts john's worship, and goes on to say that He is, "the first and the last,".. This title, or if you prefer, this description is applicable only to Almighty God, the LORD, see the verses from Isaiah, bellow.

Isa 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.
Isa 48:12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.


Now, Salvation.

Mat 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."

Jesus is the savior, but as, Isa 43:11, above says, "I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.", so they must both be the same, and therefore Jesus is God.


Now, what about, "John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!", It is possible of course that Thomas made a mistake, but if he did, why did Jesus not correct him, as the angel did at Rev 22:9,, remember, the very first example given above. Jesus accepted being referred to as, "My Lord and my God!", because that is exactly what He is, "My Lord and my God!".

It is clear from the Scripture passage bellow that, "thirty shekels of silver", is the price, or value of a dead slave. When Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
Matt 26:15 and said, "What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?" And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver to him.. They were in effect saying that in their estimation, Jesus had about as much value as a dead slave. In other words, they were both insulting and contemptuous of him.

Ex 21:28 "If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be stoned and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall go unpunished.
Ex 21:29 "If, however, an ox was previously in the habit of goring and its owner has been warned, yet he does not confine it and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death.
Ex 21:30 "If a ransom is demanded of him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is demanded of him.
Ex 21:31 "Whether it gores a son or a daughter, it shall be done to him according to the same rule.
Ex 21:32 "If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.


This contemptuous insult is reflected in our LORD's words, "{that} magnificent price at which I was valued by them." as bellow.

NASB - Zec 11:13 - Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, {that} magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty {shekels} of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Knowing that you from time to time use the name "Jehovah", and also you like to quote the NIV, I have included two more versions of this verse.

ASV - Zec 11:13 - And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah.

NIV - Zec 11:13 - And the Lord said to me, Throw it to the potter”the handsome price that I was prized at by them! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

You will have noted, "at which I was valued by them.", and "that I was prized at by them", and "that I was prized at by them".

Surely this can only mean that it is Jehovah who was betrayed for "thirty shekels of silver", and therefore Jehovah and Jesus must be one and the same person?

If not, then the verse should have read, "that My Son was prized at by them".

Now what about

NKJV - Zec 12:10 - "And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.


NIV - Zec 12:10 - And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

ESV - Zec 12:10 - And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Note. "then they will look on Me whom they pierced", and "They will look on me, the one they have pierced", and, "when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

I do not see how it is possible to avoid the conclusion that the, "Me", "I", and "Him". are one and the same person? Note also that ESV, uses, "on me, on him whom they have pierced".

I do not think it unreasonable to conclude that when Paul wrote.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.


He had in mind, Joel 2:32, three translations of which are given bellow.

NKJV - Joe 2:32 - And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.


NIV - Joe 2:32 - And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said,
among the survivors whom the LORD calls.

ESV - Joe 2:32 - And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

In other words, Paul writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt, was declaring that Jesus is God.

As I have said before, and will no doubt say again, don't try to understand it, just believe it, God has given you the faith to believe, so use it.

The human mind is totally incapable of comprehending the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus, so don't try. Remember "Without faith, it is impossible to please God". Better rendered as "Without exercising faith".

Thank you James for saying,

"Much of what you say is correct, but some adjustment is needed".

In the main I tend to use the word "Jesus" rather than "Yeshua" because everyone knows just who I am referring to, as you did.

I find there is no need to use transliterations of Hebrew words because it might give the impression that speak Hebrew, which I do not.

Now tell me,

1. Why do you think Jesus a Jew, when speaking to Jews used Aramaic rather than Hebrew ?

2. Why was Greek used for publication of the words spoken by Jesus, and not Aramaic ?

3. Why is the name Yeshua not included in the Greek text, when other words are, like "bar" meaning son ?

4. Why is it that when the NT, quotes the OT, it uses the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic Text ?

Every blessing.

Edwin.
>1. Why do you think Jesus a Jew, when speaking to Jews used Aramaic rather than Hebrew ?
>2. Why was Greek used for publication of the words spoken by Jesus, and not Aramaic ?
>3. Why is the name Yeshua not included in the Greek text, when other words are, like "bar" meaning son ?
>4. Why is it that when the NT, quotes the OT, it uses the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic Text ?

Why do you think Jesus a Jew, when speaking to Jews used Aramaic rather than Hebrew ?


I personally think he spoke Hebrew when in Judea and Aramaic when in Samaria or Galil.

Why was Greek used for publication of the words spoken by Jesus, and not Aramaic ?


I don't. I maintain that the original publication of the words spoken by Yeshua were in Hebrew and Aramaic and that the Greek is one of the earliest translations. All of this is outlined in my Introduction to the Hebraic Roots Version Scriptures and in more detail in my book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene.

Why is the name Yeshua not included in the Greek text, when other words are, like "bar" meaning son ?

Well since the Greek is an early translation...however the original Hebrew and Aramaic have "Yeshua" and in Hebrews "Yahushua".

Why is it that when the NT, quotes the OT, it uses the Septuagint, and not the Masoretic Text ?

This and other questions are answered below in a post I originally posted a few years ago:

TOP 10 REASONS GIVEN BY GREEK PRIMACISTS FOR MAINTAINING A GREEK
ORIGIN FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT
(and the 10 reasons they are wrong on each account)

1. The oldest manuscripts are Greek.

RESPONSE:

Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews
(the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle
ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament
books date back to the 4th century C.E..

However there are some important facts that those making the above
argument fail to account for.

To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947
our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated
back
only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books
were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have
argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak.

Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our
oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th
century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to
the
Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original
language of Ester was Greek.

The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester
to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is
about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to
our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest
Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial
composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the
original.

Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found
among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri
fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old
Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments
of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not
among any
discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect
Hebrew
Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better
preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT
Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew
books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which
we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no
Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more
significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old
Testament" books among them.

The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a
fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment
agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement
with the Aramaic Old Syriac text.

Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the
fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest coplete Aramaic
manuscripts of NT books.

The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be
dismissed or disproven by the existence of Greek papyri fragments
that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.


2. The NT quotes the Greek LXX "Old Testament".

RESPONSE: 1) Actually this is mainly a tendency of the Greek NT.
The Hebrew and Aramaic mss. tend to find agreement with the Masoretic
Text and the Peshitta Aramaic Tanak. 2) Agreements with the LXX do
not prove the LXX is being quoted. Hebrew copies of Tanak books have
been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that agree with the LXX. Such
agreements may be the result of these types of Hebrew manuscripts
rather than any dependence on the Greek LXX.

3. Testimonials "Such-and-such scholar said so".

RESPONSE: These do not prove anything. In fact once can also quote
various scholars which have declared that parts or all of the NT were
written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

4. Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek.

RESPONSE: Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl.
Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic
dialect.

5. Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus".

RESPONSE: Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from
37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such
as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic.

6. Greek was the common language of Jews at the time.

RESPONSE:
The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.)
testifies to the fact that Hebrew was the language of first century
Jews. Moreover, he testifies that Hebrew, and not Greek, was the
language of his place and time. Josephus gives us the only first
hand account of the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. According
to Josephus, the Romans had to have him translate the call to the
Jews to surrender into "their own language" (Wars 5:9:2) . Josephus
gives us a point-blank statement regarding the language of his people
during his time:

I have also taken a great deal of pains
to obtain the learning of the Greeks,
and understanding the elements of the Greek
language although I have so long accustomed
myself to speak our own language, that I cannot
pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness:
for our nation does not encourage those
that learn the languages of many nations.
(Ant. 20:11:2)

Thus, Josephus makes it clear that first century Jews could not even
speak or understand Greek, but spoke "their own language."

Confirmation of Josephus's claims has been found by Archaeologists.
The Bar Kokhba coins are one example. These coins were struck by
Jews during the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132 C.E.). All of these coins
bear only Hebrew inscriptions. Countless other inscriptions found at
excavations of the Temple Mount, Masada and various Jewish tombs,
have revealed first century Hebrew inscriptions
Even more profound evidence that Hebrew was a living language
during the first century may be found in ancient Documents from about
that time, which have been discovered in Israel. These include the
Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Bar Kokhba letters.
The Dead Sea Scolls consist of over 40,000 fragments of more
than 500 scrolls dating from 250 B.C.E . to 70 C.E.. Theses Scrolls
are primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic. A large number of the "secular
scrolls" (those which are not Bible manuscripts) are in Hebrew.
The Bar Kokhba letters are letters beteween Simon Bar Kokhba
and his army, written during the Jewish revolt of 132 C.E.. These
letters were discovered by Yigdale Yadin in 1961 and are almost all
written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Two of the letters are written in
Greek, both were written by men with Greek names to Bar Kokhba. One
of the two Greek letters actually apologizes for writing to Bar
Kokhba in Greek, saying "the letter is written in Greek, as we have
no one who knows Hebrew here."
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kokhba letters not only
include first and second century Hebrew documents, but give an even
more significant evidence in the dialect of that Hebrew. The dialect
of these documents was not the Biblical Hebrew of the Tenach (Old
Testament), nor was it the Mishnaic Hebrew of the Mishna (c. 220
C.E.). The Hebrew of these documents is coloquial, it is a fluid
living language in a state of flux somewhere in the evolutionary
process from Biblical to Mishnaic Hebrew. Moreover, the Hebrew of
the Bar Kokhba letters represents Galilean Hebrew (Bar Kokhba was a
Galilean) , while the Dead Sea Scrolls give us an example of Judean
Hebrew. Comparing the documents shows a living distinction of
geographic dialect as well, a sure sign that Hebrew was not a dead
language.
Final evidence that first century Jews conversed in Hebrew
and Aramaic can be found in other documents of the period, and even
later. These include: the Roll Concerning Fasts in Aramaic (66-70
C.E.), The Letter of Gamaliel in Aramaic (c. 30 - 110 C.E.), Wars
of the Jews by Josephus in Hebrew (c. 75 C.E.), the Mishna in
Hebrew (c. 220 C.E.) and the Gemara in Aramaic (c. 500 C.E.)

But regarding Paul's letters to the diaporia, Aramaic is the issue.

It is known that Aramaic remained a language of Jews living in the
diasporia, and in fact Jewish Aramaic inscriptions have been found at
Rome, Pompei and even England.

(see Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology "Note on a
Bilingual Inscription in Latin and Aramaic Recently Found at South
Shields"; A. Lowy' Dec. 3, 1878; pp. 11-12; "Five Transliterated
Aramaic Inscriptions" The American Journal of Archaeology; W.R.
Newbold; 1926; Vol. 30; pp. 288ff)


7. Paul was a helenist and would have written in Greek.

RESPONSE:
In addressing the issue of the Pauline Epistles, we must first
examine the background of Tarsus. Was Tarsus a Greek speaking city?
Would Paul have learned Greek there? Tarsus probably began as a
Hittite city-state. Around 850 B.C.E. Tarsus became part of the
great Assyrian Empire. When the Assyrian Empire was conqured by the
Babylonian Empire around 605 B.C.E. Tarsus became a part of that
Empire as well. Then, in 540 B.C.E. The Babylonian Empire, including
Tarsus, was incorporated into the Persian Empire. Aramaic was the
chief language of all three of these great Empires. By the first
century Aramaic remained a primary language of Tarsus. Coins struck
at Tarsus and recovered by archaeologists have Aramaic inscriptions
on them .
Regardless of the language of Tarsus, there is also great
question as to if Paul was actually brought up in Tarsus or just
incidentally born there. The key text in question is Acts 22:3:

I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia,
but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,
taught according to the strictness of our father's Torah.
and was zealous toward God as you all are today.

Paul sees his birth at Tarsus as irrelevant and points to his
being "brought up" in Jerusalem. Much argument has been given by
scholars to this term "brought up" as it appears here. Some have
argued that it refers only to Paul's adolescent years. A key,
however, to the usage of the term may be found in a somewhat
parrallel passage in Acts 7:20-23:

At this time Moses was born, and was well pleasing to God;
and he was brought up in his father's house for three months.
And when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away
and brought him up as her own son.
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians...

Note the sequence; "born" (Greek = gennao; Aramaic =
ityiled); "brought up" (Greek = anatrepho; Aramaic =
itrabi); "learned/taught" (Greek = paideuo; Aramaic = itr'di).
Through this parallel sequence which presumably was idiomatic in the
language, we can see that Paul was born at Tarsus, raised in
Jerusalem, and then taught. Paul's entire context is that his being
raised in Jerusalem is his primary upbringing, and that he was merely
born at Tarsus.


The claim that Paul was a Hellenist is also a
misunderstanding that should be dealt with. As we have already seen,
Paul was born at Tarsus, a city where Aramaic was spoken. Whatever
Hellenist influences may have been at Tarsus, Paul seems to have left
there at a very early age and been "brought up" in Jerusalem. Paul
describes himself as a "Hebrew" (2Cor. 11:2) and a "Hebrew of
Hebrews" (Phil. 3:5), and "of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). It
is important to realize how the term "Hebrew" was used in the first
century. The term Hebrew was not used as a geneological term, but as
a cultural/linguistic term. An example of this can be found in Acts
6:1 were a dispute arises between the "Hebrews" and
the "Hellenists." Most scholars agree that the "Hellenists" here are
Hellenist Jews. No evangelistic efforts had yet been made toward non-
Jews (Acts 11:19) much less Greeks (see Acts 16:6-10). In Acts 6:1 a
clear contrast is made between Hellenists and Hebrews which are
clearly non-Hellenists. Hellenists were not called Hebrews, a term
reserved for non-Hellenist Jews. When Paul calls himself a "Hebrew"
he is claiming to be a non-Hellenist, and when he calls himself
a "Hebrew of Hebrews" he is claiming to be strongly non-Hellenist.
This would explain why Paul disputed against the Hellenists and why
they attempted to kill him (Acts. 9:29) and why he escaped to Tarsus
(Acts 9:30). If there was no non-Hellenist Jewish population in
Tarsus, this would have been a very bad move.
Paul's Pharisee background gives us further reason to doubt
that he was in any way a Hellenist. Paul claimed to be a "Pharisee,
the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) meaning that he was at least a
second generation Pharisee. The Aramaic text, as well as some Greek
mss. have "Pharisee the son of Pharisees," a Semitic idiomatic
expresion meaning a third generation Pharisee. If Paul were a second
or third generation Pharisee, it would be difficult to accept that he
had been raised up as a Hellenist. Pharisees were staunchly opposed
to Hellenism. Paul's claim to be a second or third generation
Pharisee is further amplified by his claim to have been a student of
Gamliel (Acts 22:3). Gamliel was the grandson of Hillel and the head
of the school of Hillel. He was so well respected that the Mishna
states that upon his death "the glory of the Torah ceased, and purity
and modesty died." The truth of Paul's claim to have studied under
Gamliel is witnessed by Paul's constant use of Hillelian
Hermaneutics. Paul makes extensive use, for example, of the first
rule of Hillel. It is an unlikely proposition that a Hellenist would
have studied under Gamliel at the school of Hillel, then the center
of Pharisaic Judaism.


8. Paul wrote to groups in their own languages.

RESPONSE:
Paul's audience is another element which must be considered when
tracing the origins of his Epistles. Paul's Epistles were addressed
to various congregations in the diasporia. These congregations were
mixed groups made up of a core group of Jews and a complimentary
group of Gentiles. The Thessalonian congregation was just such an
assembly (Acts 17:1-4) as were the Corinthians. Certain passages in
the Corinthian Epistles are clearly aimed exclusively at Jews (1Cor.
10:1-2 for example.) Paul was writing first and foremost to the
Jewish leadership of mixed congregations.


If Paul wrote his Epistle's in Aramaic to a core group of Jews at
each congregation who then passed the message on to their Gentile
counterparts then this might give some added dimension to Paul's
phrase "to the Jew first and then to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16; 2:9-
10). It would also shed more light on the passage which Paul writes:

What advantage then has the Jew,
or what is the profit of circumcision?
Much in every way!
To them first, were committed the Words of God.
- Rom. 3:1-2

One final issue which must be discussed regarding the origin of
Paul's Epistles, is their intended purpose. It appears that Paul
intended the purpose of his Epistles to be:

1) To be read in the Congregations (Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27)

2) To have doctrinal authority (1Cor. 14:37)

All Synagogue liturgy during the Second Temple era, was in Hebrew and
Aramaic (see The Words of Jesus By Gustaf Dalman; Edinburg, England;
1909) Paul would not have written material which he intended to be
read in the congregations in any other language. Moreover all
religious writings of Jews which claimed halachic (doctrinal)
authority, were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Paul could not have
expected that his Epistles would be accepted as having the authority
he claimed for them, without having written them in Hebrew or
Aramaic.


9. There are built in explainations of Hebrew and Aramaic words in
the NT and there would not be if it had been written in Hebrew and/or
Aramaic.

RESPONSES: These "expanations" are an added feature to the Greek
translations and are not a feature of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

10. The NT was written for use by Gentiles and Gentiles of the time
spoke Greek.

RESPONSE: The original believers in Yeshua were Jews. The first
gentile "Christians" were centered at Antioch in SYRIA (Acts
11:26). Syrians spoke Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic. These "first"
groups would have had a need for Scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Even *IF* parts of the NT were intended for gentiles, this does not
mean they were initially Greek speaking Gentiles. To the contrary
the ealiest Gentile believers were Aramaic speaking Syrians and
Assyrians.
Thank you James for your extensive, and most informative post in reply to my 4 questions.

However, what all the 4 have in common is "Language" either spoken, or written, in other words a clear indication that He who made us is able to communicate with us in any language, and not just Hebrew.

Regarding 2, I am well aware that most of if not all of the NT, autographs were written in either Hebrew, or Aramaic, but were then translated into Greek (the lingua franca) of that day so as to be available to the widest readership.

Regarding 3, There is no need for transliterations of the names/descriptions of the Deity.

Regarding 4, The Septuagint translation was made for the same reason as 2.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service