Did Jesus have a brother???

Originally posted by Br. Max
welp, Christ being GOD - I'm sure he spoke and speaks ALL languages

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of what languages he knew, it's a matter of which language he used to teach the Gospel in.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Now we are agreeing Thadman!

The King of Kings spoke in the language that everyone understood then! Greek! (the lingua franca at the time!)...and isn't this very much like Jesus anyway...speaking in such a way that everyone could understand...

Right on Br. Max.,

Here's geographic-historical evidence that Jesus spoke Greek (along with some textual evidence):

The Sea of Galilee had many cities surrounding it: Jewish and non-Jewish. Significant for our discussion, the Sea of Galilee was surrounded by Greek Cities. (In fact, the seven cities to whom the Book of Revelation is written to are ALL Greek).

1) Remember that near Tyre and Sidon, He had a conversation with a Greek Lady (it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus spoke in Greek to her).

2)Jews themselves said that He spoke Greek:

Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him?  Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

-John 7:35

Are we to suppose that Jesus (the same Jesus that bent down to wash his disciple's feet) spoke in a language less than accessible to the world or even these Greeks?

3) Finally, Revelations 22:16 reveals a clear quotation from Jesus...and yes... it's in Greek.  He says, "I, Jesus...." or in Greek, "Iesous".

Taken together as a whole, this evidence can give us peace in knowing that God did indeed, give His actual word (and not an unexact copy) to His chuch as He intended it (whether it be RCC or Protestant).

We can take the New Testament at its word.

We can take Jesus at His word.

                                   -Thanks

†

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Now we are agreeing Thadman!

The King of Kings spoke in the language that everyone understood then! Greek! (the lingua franca at the time!)...and isn't this very much like Jesus anyway...speaking in such a way that everyone could understand...

Click to expand...

Er, no. The linga franca of Judea was Aramaic. Coins and papers unearthed proved this.

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Right on Br. Max.,

Here's geographic-historical evidence that Jesus spoke Greek (along with some textual evidence):

The Sea of Galilee had many cities surrounding it: Jewish and non-Jewish. Significant for our discussion, the Sea of Galilee was surrounded by Greek Cities. (In fact, the seven cities to whom the Book of Revelation is written to are ALL Greek).

Click to expand...

Well, if the Book of Revelation was written in Greek:

Then why is the Alpha and Omega the "to alfa kai to o" instead of "to alpha kai to omega" being spelled out? Also know that the single letter omega looks quite like the last letter of the Aramaic alphabet (tau) spelled out.

Secondly, why the heck was Jezebel thrown into a bed (of all things)? Funny how the Aramaic word for "bed" can mean "coffin" too.

Thirdly, why does the Greek grammar of Revelation even make koine Greek scholars cry while the grammar makes sense to Hebrew and Aramaic speakers?

Could it be a translation of a semitic language?

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
1) Remember that near Tyre and Sidon, He had a conversation with a Greek Lady (it is not unreasonable to assume that Jesus spoke in Greek to her).

Click to expand...

Er, she's a SYRIO-PHONECIAN woman. Syria is where one of the modern dialects of Aramaic (Syriac) is spoken today. Plus, the Aramaic MSS (and Old Latin, if I remember correctly) along with a bunch of other MSS in other languages use the term "gentile" not Greek.

Funny also how "the Jew and the Greek" are paired up as it should be "Jew and Gentile" for there were Greek Jews to the far north at the time. On top of that, it's also funny how "preach to the Jew first and then the Greek" is not all-inclusive. Many people who are non-Jew are also non-Greek.

To the JEW first and then the GENTILE.

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
2)Jews themselves said that He spoke Greek:

Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him?  Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?

-John 7:35

Click to expand...

You're using the Greek MSS to prove that he spoke Greek (circular reasoning)? In the other (non-Greek) MSS, the word is "gentile."

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Are we to suppose that Jesus (the same Jesus that bent down to wash his disciple's feet) spoke in a language less than accessible to the world or even these Greeks?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant How does this have any bearing on the facts? Suppositions mean nothing. Evidence is what we're looking for.

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
3) Finally, Revelations 22:16 reveals a clear quotation from Jesus...and yes... it's in Greek.  He says, "I, Jesus...." or in Greek, "Iesous".

Click to expand...

GAK! More circular reasoning! In the Aramaic MSS, it says "I, Yeshu'" in the Latin is says "I, Iasous" in the Coptic, it says "I, Eesoos" this proves nothing.

Was Jesus quoted saying the Lord's Prayer in Greek in the Greek manuscripts?

Yep.

Does it rhyme and have meter in the Greek?

Nopers. But it does in the Aramaic.

SAME thing with the beatitudes (and a LOT of his other teachings, which are quoted in Greek in the Greek, but in Aramaic, there's something more). Idioms are poorly translated into Greek, as well as wordplay which doesn't exist in the language. Also see above about Revelation's "smoking guns."

Originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Taken together as a whole, this evidence can give us peace in knowing that God did indeed, give His actual word (and not an unexact copy) to His chuch as He intended it (whether it be RCC or Protestant).

We can take the New Testament at its word.

We can take Jesus at His word.


-Thanks

Click to expand...

My friend, I strongly suggest that you give my website a thorough look through before we continue (the link's in my signature). The proofs you've given me really HEAVILY rest on circular reasoning.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Originally posted by The Thadman
Er, no. The linga franca of Judea was Aramaic. Coins and papers unearthed proved this.,


RESPONSE:
The linga franca of Judea was Aramaic?!  Thadman, any History textbook will tell you that a guy named Alexander the Great established a kingdom that imposed Greek Culture on all of the known world (what would one day become the Western World)!  This is Historic Fact!  Do you dispute this?!

That Jews kept their native language of Aramaic, I do not doubt.  But saying that Aramaic was the linga franca of the world during the 1st century A.D. is like saying that Spanish is the linga franca of the United States because ethnically the United States is becoming more and more Hispanic?!  Clearly, the language of communication at a macro-level is English in the United States .  Every textbook says that Greek was the the language of communication at a macro-level.

I was hoping, I wouldn't have to say this again: Jesus was interested in preaching the gospel to the entire world.  Greek was the language known throughout the entire world.  Thus,  _______________________________________.

Furthermore, why did you answer with reference to Judea?  Clearly, Jesus directs his disciples to preach to all the nations of the world, even beyond Palestine's borders.

Lastly, your pieces of evidence are relics... even by the standards of the era in question.  (If you were someone living in the future looking back at me now, you might think that I speak Latin because I carry a coin with the phrase E Pluribus Unum).  FYI: Any Historian will tell you that the Palestine of the 1st Century A.D. underwent a fundamental cultural change (but apparently not fundamental enough for you since you have an objection based on coins.)



Well, if the Book of Revelation was written in Greek:

Then why is the Alpha and Omega the "to alfa kai to o" instead of "to alpha kai to omega" being spelled out? Also know that the single letter omega looks quite like the last letter of the Aramaic alphabet (tau) spelled out.

Secondly, why the heck was Jezebel thrown into a bed (of all things)? Funny how the Aramaic word for "bed" can mean "coffin" too.

Thirdly, why does the Greek grammar of Revelation even make koine Greek scholars cry while the grammar makes sense to Hebrew and Aramaic speakers?

Could it be a translation of a semitic language?

Response:
Maybe.  Or it could be a translation of a language that has been completely lost.  Perhaps if we take the first and last letter of every word we can see that ...yes...could it be...I knew it...Zion is actually Alpha Centauri... a nearby star no too far away from here... [Sarcasm Off]

Thadmaster, these speculations obviously show that you are a gifted mind as well as a creative one.  But this is far from a smoking gun.


Er, she's a SYRIO-PHONECIAN woman. Syria is where one of the modern dialects of Aramaic (Syriac) is spoken today. Plus, the Aramaic MSS (and Old Latin, if I remember correctly) along with a bunch of other MSS in other languages use the term "gentile" not Greek.

Funny also how "the Jew and the Greek" are paired up as it should be "Jew and Gentile" for there were Greek Jews to the far north at the time. On top of that, it's also funny how "preach to the Jew first and then the Greek" is not all-inclusive. Many people who are non-Jew are also non-Greek.

To the JEW first and then the GENTILE.

 

Response
Perhaps I wasn't clear.  There are/were Jews, There are/were non-Jews, There are/were Greeks, There are/were non-greeks.  But if you wanted to communicate with diverse groups of people in the 1st century A.D., you had to learn the language: Greek.  My point is that the Greek language was quickly making ethnicity irrelevant.  Thus, your point is irrelevant.


You're using the Greek MSS to prove that he spoke Greek (circular reasoning)? In the other (non-Greek) MSS, the word is "gentile."



Irrelevant How does this have any bearing on the facts? Suppositions mean nothing. Evidence is what we're looking for.



GAK! More circular reasoning! In the Aramaic MSS, it says "I, Yeshu'" in the Latin is says "I, Iasous" in the Coptic, it says "I, Eesoos" this proves nothing.

Was Jesus quoted saying the Lord's Prayer in Greek in the Greek manuscripts?

Yep.

Does it rhyme and have meter in the Greek?

Nopers. But it does in the Aramaic.

SAME thing with the beatitudes (and a LOT of his other teachings, which are quoted in Greek in the Greek, but in Aramaic, there's something more). Idioms are poorly translated into Greek, as well as wordplay which doesn't exist in the language. Also see above about Revelation's "smoking guns."



My friend, I strongly suggest that you give my website a thorough look through before we continue (the link's in my signature). The proofs you've given me really HEAVILY rest on circular reasoning.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Click to expand...

Thadmaster,

If you're wondering why I seem irate, it is because you're asking me to prove that the New Testament was written in Greek but without resorting to the Greek manuscripts. NO ONE HAS EVER FOUND ANY OTHER ORIGINALS EXCEPT GREEK ORIGINALS!  THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH YOU!  FOR YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAYS THAT WE SHOULD BELIEVE THAT THESE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS in ARAMAIC EXIST AND YET NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN FOUND  (MORMONITIS?).

FYI:  CIRCULAR REASONING is when someone tries to prove something by assuming the very thing that they are trying to prove.

I am using the CONTENT of the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament (in any language) to prove that the LANGUAGE of the New Testament is in Greek.  I am using CONTENT to prove LANGUAGE.  CONTENT and LANGUAGE are not identical.

With regard to rhyme and meter,

THERE ARE NO ARAMAIC Manuscripts of the NEW Testament.  If you're amazed at how well the rhyme and meter flow, you need to understand that there could potentially be many ways that this alleged Aramaic text expressed itself (i.e.- no one would know what words are in this alleged Aramaic text anyway because there's more than one way to say something...)  I can only conclude that someone took the Aramaic VERSION that best fit the rhyme and meter!

Thadmaster,

You and I obviously believe different things about Jesus.  But WE CAN AGREE ON THIS.  Anyone can read the Bible (in any language) and find errors, discrepancies, or contradictions in it. 

However, people who truly have faith and believe in Christ know that the Bible is the accurate word of God.

People can have faith in his word.

Your observations are neat, but believers know that when you read the Bible you cannot rely on your own observations but ask for God's guidance.   Otherwise the passage, "Walk by Faith, not by Sight" wouldn't make sense (even if you translate it into Aramaic.)

I agree with Br. Max's question -- if the evidence is so good, why isn't it accepted by the Biblical scholarship community? Are we supposed to believe that an 18-year old knows more about Biblical studies than 2000 years of scholarship comprising tens of thousands of people?

What do the ECF's have to say on this matter? I know that someone mentions Matthew writing the "sayings of Jesus" in Aramaic, but most scholars do not believe this refers to the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps Q was Aramaic, though.

-Chris

Prodigious Prime,

Alexander the Great did not impose Greek culture as much as you're claiming. Any textbook can tell you that. He had a "keep your culture, keep your language, just give me the taxes" sorta attitude. Even his tax collectors worked on a commissions system, for crying out loud! Remember that the Jews of the time were well respected by the government. They followed a religion that was very old and had a history, and for that reason the government left it alone all the more.

I never ONCE stated that it was the lingua franca of the world at the time. Greek was for the government, but the PEOPLE kept the language they were used to. Even the famous Josephus originally penned his great works in Aramaic, then TRANSLATED to Greek, and as to the Greek language itself, well, let's see what HE has to say about it:

"For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them"

This was from Antiquities of the Jews (a really cool read if you're interested), Book 20, Chapter 11, Paragraph 2, about a 2/3rds of the way down.

He admits that he's done MORE than most Jews of the time, took GREAT PAINS to learn the Greek language (which he still can't pronounce properly) and the reason why it was such a big deal is that LEARNING GREEK WAS DISCOURAGED, it was looked upon as nothing.

Was this the cultural change you're talking about?

As to Revelation: Can you DEAL with what I've brought up instead of BRUSHING IT OFF with sarcasm? I've given proof, now your job is to either refute it, or accept it, not dance around it

As to Circular Reasoning: You're assuming that the Greek MSS are correct in quoting phenomena that ONLY occur in the Greek MSS and claiming them to be correct. I.E. you're assuming the conclusion to be true and then using it as proof. Why does your content refer to Simon as a Leper? Why does your content have Jesus misprophesying about a "generation"? Why does your content have Jesus telling us to "hate" our mother, father, brother, and even ourselves when we're to love our neighbor AS ourself? Why does your content talk about threading a CAMEL through the eye of a needle? Why does your content have manuscript variances that split down the middle 50-50 with two completely different Greek words that seem to have been translated from a single Aramaic word with two distinct meanings? Why does your content have Jesus cry out that he was forsaken (when Paul said that he was NEVER forsaken)?

As to your claim that no Aramaic MSS have ever been found is an argument in ignorance. Ever hear of the Pe****ta (over 250 Aramaic MSS of the New Testament which are IDENTICAL compared to the "no two Greek MSS are alike" principle) and the Old Syriac (two separate MSS whose style of writing has been dated at 2 AD)? Both classes of which are Aramaic MSS of the New Testament whose roots are in the 1st Century. I also assume that you haven't read any of the works of Dr. James Trimm, Dr. Lamsa (although misguided), Voobus, Andrew Roth, and William Cureton? How about the eastern churches who are just learning (JUST LEARNING) about the existence of Greek MSS after having Aramaic copies of the scripture for the past 2000 years? Give http://www.Peshtta.org a look for a general overview of the Pe****ta.

Also why are you growing so bent out of shape over this? Do you think that there's a huge impact? Why do you think I'm debating it online? Do you think that I'd debate something that I find essential to the faith on a messageboard? Since it's peripheral, I'm here

Shlomo! (Peace!)

That is "P e s h i t t a"... Silly profanity checker

Originally posted by kern
I agree with Br. Max's question -- if the evidence is so good, why isn't it accepted by the Biblical scholarship community? Are we supposed to believe that an 18-year old knows more about Biblical studies than 2000 years of scholarship comprising tens of thousands of people?

What do the ECF's have to say on this matter? I know that someone mentions Matthew writing the "sayings of Jesus" in Aramaic, but most scholars do not believe this refers to the Gospel of Matthew. Perhaps Q was Aramaic, though.

-Chris

Click to expand...

The reason why? It's new. It hasn't been prominent in Western Theology for more than 20 years? Before then it was never looked at in detail. You'll see a lot more discussion about Aramaic and the New Testament after Mel Gibson's movie comes out.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

Have I ever heard of Pe****ta?

Pe****ta - Old and New Testaments translated from their original languages to Syriac during the 1st Century A.D; the original language that these texts were inspired in were Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament.

The Pe****ta is defined by every reputable school as a translation .

Yes, there are Aramaic New Testaments!

But Thadman,

I'm sorry to break this to you.... but the Bible has been translated into many different languages over millenia (and even directly after the Ascencion) including Aramaic.

The issue is whether there are any Aramaic New Testament Originals out there. (So please don't confuse the issue purposely or otherwise).

There are no Aramaic Original Manuscripts for the New Testament.... because no one has ever found any. The Pe****ta is a translation.

Why do I say this? [I hear you say],


For the very same reason why I assume that the Greek Manuscripts (RSV) are the originals Thadman.... because Textual Critics from across the Millenia and from every denomination [reputable] have come to the same conclusion.

To say their assumption is wrong is not a slight statement in the least. Please understand this. Cults from across the ages have dedicated their entire intellectual power to call the integrity of the Bible into question.

If you want to call this assumption into question, you have every right to. But it is your job to provide sufficient evidence to disregard thousands of years of theology. Not mine.

Question: If the originals are Aramaic, would it not have been easier to translate the New Testament in Hebrew from Aramaic? But it wasn't it was translated from the Greek. Every modern translation that the people watching this forum have was translated from the Greek.

Can you explain this, Thadman?

Here are just a very few references out of the thousands of Textual Critics over the years who have simply reaffirmed what has already been known: The Greek Manuscripts are the original manuscripts.

1) Will Durant
2) Michael Grant
3) Edward Gibbon (of an older century but nonetheless very eminent)

If you want to quote the granddaddies of History...I will:

Henry Hart Milman here refers to the language of the first Christian Literature:


The Greek already possessed the foundations of this literature in the Septuagint Version of the Oldand in the original of the New Testament


Dr. James Harvey Robinson has been called "one of the greatest of American Teachers of history". Let me explain. He fathered many of the modern techniques historians use today. While explaining the influence of the Greek culture of the Roman Empire, Dr. Robinson makes note of the rise of Christianity and of Christianity's book:


It had it origin in Palestine and was set forth in a Greek book:The New Testament

That's History:

What about Textual Criticism you ask?

Everything from the original King James Committee to the most Modern Concordance available ASSUME that the Greek manuscripts are the originals.

Hopefully you are familiar with Dr. Robert Young? In his preface to the Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Young states:



This work, in its present for, is not to be considered as intended to come into competition with the ordinary use of the commonly received English version of the Holy Scriptures but simply as a strictly literal and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts.

And what about Moffatt, Thadman.

The writers of the New Testament all wrote in Hellenistic Greek.

There are hundreds of other references, Thadman.

Here are Quick references if you're in the Library...and you feel that Thadman may be right.

The Encyclopedia.....any Encyclopedia.

Thadman, can you honestly tell me that you can point to an eminent scholar that says that the complete New Testament was written in Aramaic?


So far you have produced implied conspiracies based on mostly grammatical curiosities... These are interesting... I grant you that....

What about History, Archaeology, and most importantly Philosophy?

Your claims run completely against the grain of what weknow about the History through archaeology of the period. And yes... the implications of what you're saying are the most disturbing.

Thadman Claim #1: Alexander the Great wasn't all that Great.....:
Huh... Thadman... he is the reason why Western World ideas spread to the Western world....I think you might be saying Rome had no cultural identity...simply structure (since Roman Culture was essentially a remake of Greek Culture). Would anyone whom is taking a basic course in Ancient history care to chime in?

Thadman Claim #2: As a result, the Jewish Culture existed in a vaccuum. It did not interact with a discernible Greek Culture.

No. Although there were a few Jewish Sects that thought translating the Old Testament into Greek was bad...most thought it was pretty neat. How do you I know this (you ask): spell S-E-P-T-U-A-G-I-N-T. Most major Hebrew rabbis quoted from the Old Testament that had been translated into Greek. How about that? Even their Holy Scriptures was translated into Greek and with applause! Yet you claim that they were squeamish of Greek. But clearly they handed over their Bible to be translated.

Please chime in if you believe this is a "smoking gun".


Thadman, clearly you provide evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of aliens and Loch Ness. What I mean is that you present evidence to support instances that were the exception rather than the rule. The question is: Can you provide compelling evidence to overturn thousands of years of research?

You've got your linguistics down Thadman! Try basic History and Archaeology...

Why do I have my undies in a bundle. That should be obvious by now. People must know that they can trust the Bible. Their Bible. You say they can't. Honestly, Thadman, I cannot imagine where you came up with your outrageous claims... I don't want to see people taken advantage of over stuff they don't know....so that's why.

But for anyone out there whom wonders which one of us is right. Ask your Pastor or Priest....please,......

There is ample evidence, to believe that the Greek Manuscripts (RSV) are the original manuscripts and not translations. There is ample evidence to believe that your Bible really is your Bible.

Whew! Thank You!


P.S.-Who cares if the Pe****ta is standardized? KJV is standardized (today). Is Old English the original language of the Bible then?

And finally to all of you watching....read carefully what he's saying and realize the meaning please.

Bump!

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Have I ever heard of Pe****ta?

Pe****ta - Old and New Testaments translated from their original languages to Syriac during the 1st Century A.D; the original language that these texts were inspired in were Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament .

The Pe****ta is defined by every reputable school as a translation .

Click to expand...

--You also left out the Old Syriac The Pe****ta and Old Syriac make up an Aramaic tradition whose complete MSS date back to the same decade as the oldest complete Greek MSS. Whether or not the Pe****ta was a translation is up to debate. Please read on:

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Yes, there are Aramaic New Testaments!

But Thadman,

I'm sorry to break this to you.... but the Bible has been translated into many different languages over millenia (and even directly after the Ascencion).

The issue is whether there are any Aramaic New Testament Originals out there. (So please don't confuse the issue purposely or otherwise).

There are no Aramaic Original Manuscripts for the New Testament.... because no one has ever found any. The Pe****ta is a translation.

Why do I say this? [I hear you say],


For the very same reason why I assume that the Greek Manuscripts (RSV) are the originals Thadman.... because Textual Critics from across the Millenia and from every denomination [reputable] have come to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...

--Can you name some of these [reputable] scholars? What're their credencials? What do they say about the evidence that I've presented?

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
To say their assumption is wrong is not a slight statement in the least. Please understand this. Cults from across the ages have dedicated their entire intellectual power to call the integrity of the Bible into question.

Click to expand...

--The only time I've EVER doubted the integrity of the Bible was before I was Christian.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
If you want to call this assumption into question, you have every right to. But it is your job to provide sufficient evidence to disregard thousands of years of theology. Not mine.

Question: If the originals are Aramaic, would it not have been easier to translate the New Testament in Hebrew from Aramaic? But it wasn't it was translated from the Greek. Every modern translation that the people watching this forum has was translated from the Greek.

Can you explain this, Thadman?

Click to expand...

--The earliest translations (Old Latin, Coptic, etc.) AGREE with the Aramaic, and deviate furthest from the majority of the Greek body. Then again, antiquity proves nothing (argumentum ad antiquam). If we believed that the oldest MSS proved penmanship, then we all would have been believing that the Old Testament were originally written in Greek (up to before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is) which NO ONE believed. So, with this in mind, let's examine the actual texts themselves and see if they prove translations or originals.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Here are just a very few references out of the thousands of Textual Critics over the years who have simply reaffirmed what has already been known: The Greek Manuscripts are the original manuscripts.

1) Will Durant
2) Michael Grant
3) Edward Gibbon (of an older century but nonetheless very eminent)

If you want to quote the granddaddies of History...I will:

Henry Hart Milman here refers to the language of the first Christian Literature:
The Greek already possessed the foundations of this literature in the Septuagint Version of the Old and in the original of the New Testament

Click to expand...

--Does this scholar have any knowledge of the Aramaic NT? If so what does he say concerning it?

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Dr. James Harvey Robinson has been called "one of the greatest of American Teachers of history". Let me explain. He fathered many of the modern techniques historians use today. While explaining the influence of the Greek culture of the Roman Empire, Dr. Robinson makes note of the rise of Christianity and of Christianity's book.
It had it origin in Palestine and was set forth in a Greek book: The New Testament

That's History:

Click to expand...

--Does this scholar have any knowledge of the Aramaic NT? If so what does he say concerning it?

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
What about Textual Criticism you ask?

Everything from the original King James Committee to the most Modern Concordance available ASSUME that the Greek manuscripts are the originals.

--Assume is your key word: I want evidence! Not assumptions.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Hopefully you are familiar with Dr. Robert Young? In his preface to the Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Young states:

This work, in its present for, is not to be considered as intended to come into competition with the ordinary use of the commonly received English version of the Holy Scriptures but simply as a strictly literal and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts.

Click to expand...

--Does this scholar have any knowledge of the Aramaic NT? If so what does he say concerning it?

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
And what about Moffatt, Thadman.

The writers of the New Testament all wrote in Hellenistic Greek.

Click to expand...

--Does this scholar have any knowledge of the Aramaic NT? If so what does he say concerning it?

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Here are Quick references if you're in the Library...and you feel that Thadman may be right.

The Encyclopedia.....any Encyclopedia.

Thadman, can you honestly tell me that you can point to an eminent scholar that says that the complete New Testament was written in Aramaic?

Click to expand...

--Not all of these are for the complete whole of the NT, but in the order of most to least: Dr. James Trimm, Paul Younan, Voobus, Dr. William Cureton, David Stern, Hugh J. Schonfield, Charles Cutler Torey, Frank Zimmerman, Charles Fox Burney, R.B.Y. Scott, just to name a few.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
So far you have produced implied conspiracies based on mostly grammatical curiosities... These are interesting... I grant you that....

What about History, Archaeology, and most importantly Philosophy?

Click to expand...

--STOP. Deal with the curiosities. Don't brush them off or change the topic. It's not just that there are curiosities, it's the SHEER NUMBER OF THEM.

--Also, where did "conspiracies" come from?

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Your claims run completely against the grain of what we know about the History through archaeology of the period. And yes... the implications of what you're saying are the most disturbing.

Thadman Claim #1: Alexander the Great wasn't all that Great.....:
Huh... Thadman... he is the reason why Western World ideas spread to the Western world....I think you might be saying Rome had no cultural identity...simply structure (since Roman Culture was essentially a remake of Greek Culture). Would anyone whom is taking a basic course in Ancient history care to chime in?

Thadman Claim #2: As a result, the Jewish Culture existed in a vaccuum. It did not interact with a discernible Greek Culture.

No. Although there were a few Jewish Sects that though translating the Old Testament into Greek was bad...most thought it was pretty neat. How do you I know this (you ask): spell S-E-P-T-U-A-G-I-N-T. Most major Hebrew rabbis quoted from the Old Testament that had been translated into Greek. How about that? Even their Holy Scripture was translated into Greek and with applause! Yet you claim that they were squeamish of Greek. But clearly they handed over their Bible to be translated.

Please chime in if you believe this is a "smoking gun".

Click to expand...

--Spell T-A-R-G-U-M. How many Aramaic Targums compared to the ONE Greek Septuagint? What about the Old Testament Pe****ta, too (a translation, not just a Targum)? Plus, the documents that the Septuagint were based upon would have been available to Jesus in the 1st century, no? (Please correct me if I'm wrong) What about the Talmuds? All in Aramaic.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Thadman, clearly you provide evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of aliens and Loch Ness. What I mean is that you present evidence to support instances that were the exception rather than the rule. The question is: Can you provide compelling evidence to overturn thousands of years of research?

Click to expand...

--Only with the help of the Holy Spirit, m'friend. If thousands of years of research are based upon one axiom, and that axiom is found to be false, what happens to those thousands of years of research? I'm a tool.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
You've got your linguistics down Thadman! Try basic History and Archaeology...

Why do I have my undies in a bundle. That should be obvious by now.

People must know that they can trust the Bible. Their Bible. You say they can't. Honestly, Thadman, I cannot imagine where you came up with your outrageous claims... I don't want to see people taken advantage of over stuff they don't know....so that's why.

But for anyone out there whom wonders which one of us is right. Ask your Pastor or Priest....please,......

There is ample evidence, to believe that the Greek Manuscripts (RSV) are the original manuscripts and not translations. There is ample evidence to believe that your Bible really is your Bible.

Click to expand...

--When did I say that the Bible was untrustworthy? Did I NOT say: "Do you think that there's a huge impact? Why do you think I'm debating it online? Do you think that I'd debate something that I find essential to the faith on a messageboard? Since it's peripheral, I'm here "? I'm debating this because I feel that it is NOT essential to salvation. Did I also not say elsewhere on this board "the best Greek and the Aramaic MSS match up 99%"? Please do not misquote (or even misparaphrase) me, please. Thanks. I'm not after disproving or bringing doubt upon the Bible (that's NOT my job), I'm trying to foster better understanding of the language of our Messiah, as well as talk about my Aramaic studies (which point towards a LARGE CHUNK of the NT having been written in Aramaic or Syriac FIRST, then translated later).

--The STRONG evidences ("curiosities" as you call them) I have are broken down so far as follows: Matthew(5), Mark(5),Luke(3),Acts(1),Romans(2),1Corinthians(1),Revelation(4), and are available on my webpage. My study is FAR from complete. I have yet to even dive into John, and the other Epistles other than Romans and 1 Corinthians, and my study on Acts has just begun.

--I would ask that you bring each up individually and we'll discuss it instead of diverting attention from the actual subject at hand to something else. Is this not proper?

--If you won't, I will.

originally posted by Prodigious Prime
Whew! Thank You!

Click to expand...

--Anytime.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

--What's your view about Joesphus, btw?

EDIT: Had to fix an unclosed quote.

Click to expand...

One evidence just cropped up today in 1st Peter, discovered by an e-Pal of mine, Larry Kelsey:

In 1 Peter 3:13, some Greek MSS say "μιμηται" (imitate), and some say "ζηλωται" (zealous).

The following MSS say "zealous": L=Lachmann 1842, T=Tischendorf 1869, Tr=Tregelles 1857, A=Alford 1849 as revised in 1871, W=Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870, WH=Westcott & Hort 1881, N=Collation in progress of Nestle 1927 as revised in 1941 (17th). NA=Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979) where the rest read "imitate".

The Aramaic MSS of 1 Peter say ܛܢܢ which can mean BOTH, "imitate" or "zealous".

What's everyone's view on this?

Shlomo! (Peace!)

My view is that you have chosen an incompatible font to work on vBulletin.

Is this a little private, pet project of yours, Thadman?


Peace,
~VOW

Hi, VOW! Long time no see.

Regarding the Hebrew Gospels, here's some Church Fathers:

"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted [translated] them as best he could." (Fragments of Papias 6, ANF 1:155.)

Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180, informs us, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect" Against Heresies 3, 1, 1, ANF 1:414).

Origen (c. A.D. 185 - 254), wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language" 9Commentary on Matthew, quoted in Eusebius, Church Histsory 6, 25, NPNF2, 1:273).

welcome to the forum.

Neal

he had like 2 half brothers ( keepin mind god is his father) .

Originally posted by Toxic-Jubilee
he had like 2 half brothers ( keepin mind god is his father) .

Click to expand...

So who are these two other 'sons of God'? 

Kotton