A question.

The truth is nobody knows, all you all have is guessing. Nobody knows if the first writing were in greek or written in greek with an aramaic mind or if written directly in aramaic.

There is truth to that, as we could not film then... However, Greek primacists claim - WITh NO EVIDENCE - That the Peshitta is translated from the Greek. My claim that the Greek is translated from the Peshitta actually has evidence, which I have made freely available in my book.

Servant of the Kingdom said:

jkoziel, most protestants are just following what they were told at kids or by their pastors. Very few can read greek.

Click to expand...

My sarcasm monitor reads zero.

There is truth to that, as we could not film then... However, Greek primacists claim - WITh NO EVIDENCE - That the Peshitta is translated from the Greek. My claim that the Greek is translated from the Peshitta actually has evidence, which I have made freely available in my book.

Click to expand...

Truth is I am rejecting and totally disagree with what you are saying, I could write a book as well.... The Coptics could make the same claim to their bible as the supporters of the Peshitta..

Paul was preaching throughout the Greek world to a mainly Greek community, He would have written his epistles in Greek which was the lingua Franca in the eastern Roman Empire, John settled in Ephesus, he would have written in Greek.

The oldest bibles in existance
Codex Vaticanus, Sinaitus and Alexandrian are all written in Greek, and even if it was written in Aramaic first, it still supports the teaching of the Catholic church...

I see that you are also an anti catholic and believe that the Roman Catholic church is a false church.... this chapter says this....
http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com/Online_Version/AppA.htm

This chapter in your book also says that the trinity is flawed??

The Greek came before the Peshitta, find me a Peshitta that is in existance that is older then those 3 versions that i have mentioned and then we can start talking....

"jkoziel, most protestants are just following what they were told at kids or by their pastors"

Interesting quote. This is why you should go to the original Bible and read it yourself. Too many people get their little Biblical knowledge "recycled" from pastors, priests etc rather than actually reading the Bible for themselves.

Interesting quote. This is why you should go to the original Bible and read it yourself. Too many people get their little Biblical knowledge "recycled" from pastors, priests etc rather than actually reading the Bible for themselves.

Click to expand...

Do you reject the Trinity?

Yes I do. For two very important reasons.

1) The Bible never says anything about God being triune.

2) The Bible says that Jesus is "God the Father". The trinity says He is not the Father so directly contradicts the Bible.

Regards and God Bless,

Chris

I thought that to chat in the Christian only rooms that one must profess the Nicene Creed and believe in the Trinity...

If there is no trinity, why does Jesus say to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit???

peschitta_enthusiast said:

Yes I do. For two very important reasons.

1) The Bible never says anything about God being triune.

2) The Bible says that Jesus is "God the Father". The trinity says He is not the Father so directly contradicts the Bible.

Regards and God Bless,

Chris

Click to expand...

Re: 1) Yes it does, it just doesn't use that exact word. The Father was not baptized in the Jordon river, but rather spoke his approval of it. Only the Son was baptized. The same for the transfiguration.

Re: 2) Christ utters the words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" demonstrating a distinction between the Father and the Son. As well, Paul speaks of this distinction when he speaks of the Father exalting the Son.

These examples can be multipled many times over, so I wonder why you would disbelieve in the Trinity when:

1. Scripture doesn't teach against it, and has multiple passages which easily lend themselves to the doctrine

2. This has been a universally agreed upon interpretation of the Church, including that branch of the Church which has so faithfully preserved the Peschitta.

Too many people get their little Biblical knowledge "recycled" from pastors, priests etc rather than actually reading the Bible for themselves.

Click to expand...

This sounds intelligent until one actually thinks about the implications. Since you are interested in being independent from pastors, priests, etc., one has to wonder from whom have you derived this anti-trinitarian interpretation. If from yourself, then I wonder why you are inclined to exalt your own interpretive abilities above those whom the consensus of the Church currently rests upon? And if from someone else, how are you any better than those you condemn?

Nevertheless, Paul makes clear what it is we are to do:

II Thessalonians - Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught...But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

You lack the understanding that Father, Son , Spirit are MANIFESTATIONS of God, not persons. The word "logos/word" in Aramaic is "Miltha" which means "manifestation". And John 1, if "God" here is trinity, then we have "the Word (Jesus) was WITH the trinity --> 4 persons?!?! AND, "Jesus was that trinity" ---> ah so He is all three?!?!

If "God" is not trinity but "God the Father", then you have "And the Word (Jesus) was God the Father"



Note that ONLY a manifestation can be SAME and DISTINCT at once.

Not only that, but Paul says there is one true God, "Alaha Abba" - God the Father. If Jesus is God, He is either this "God the Father", or He is a false god.

Also, Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days. Other verses say the Father did it. Hmm...

Also, the "trinity baptism formula" is the NAME (singular). Now, we see this NAME in Acts used by the Apostles when they baptise - it is Yeshua.

There are many more, friends.

Regards,

Chris

As for the Nicene Creed as liste don this forums, I believe that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. So, there you go I also believe that the burning bush, the pillar of cloud, the 7 spirits of God, the wrestler who fought Jacob etc were God - but I don't believe in a "septity".

Enthusiast,

I think that you are a very ignorant person, just by saying that the church of the east and the Catholic church are false religons alone.. I think you and your group are trying to make up your own religon. There is more evidence in the bible for catholicsm than any make up religon that you and your friends are trying to create..

One of my best friends is from western Iraq and his mother tongue is a form of Aramaic, his father is a priest on the COE and read a little of your book. He finds that you have a complete lack of understanding of Aramaic.

You have been unable to find my a bible older than the Codex Alexandrian, Vaticanus and Sinaitus. The are even Coptic versions in existance today that are older than any Peshitta in existance. I am not saying the peshitta is of no historical importance, because it is. That same peshitta you are reading or pushing was written by the catholics who were in the east. The holy traditions came before the new testament...

Scholars today are still saying that the Peshitta was translated from the Greek Verision and that all there is to it.

The New Testament itself is no a solitary work, but a compilation of many different works from different sources. The gospels themselves incorporated different sources into their bodies, and some of these sources may well have been Aramaic. It is possible, for example for the Gospel of Matthew to have been built around a collection of sayings of Jesus written in Aramaic by Matthew himself. The final composition of the book, however, was most probably in Greek.

Scholars who understand the New Testaments to be primarily Greek works are in the vast majority, and are not without their reasons for believing this as well. This is of course a question of scholarship, and not of faith. With the evidence of the Pentecost, the gospels were meant to be spread across the earth in all languages. And whether the teaching is in Arabic Aramaic, English, or Swahili, there is no reason to assume that the traditional teachings are wrong.

peschitta_enthusiast said:

You lack the understanding that Father, Son , Spirit are MANIFESTATIONS of God, not persons. The word "logos/word" in Aramaic is "Miltha" which means "manifestation". And John 1, if "God" here is trinity, then we have "the Word (Jesus) was WITH the trinity --> 4 persons?!?! AND, "Jesus was that trinity" ---> ah so He is all three?!?!

If "God" is not trinity but "God the Father", then you have "And the Word (Jesus) was God the Father"



Note that ONLY a manifestation can be SAME and DISTINCT at once.

Not only that, but Paul says there is one true God, "Alaha Abba" - God the Father. If Jesus is God, He is either this "God the Father", or He is a false god.

Also, Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days. Other verses say the Father did it. Hmm...

Also, the "trinity baptism formula" is the NAME (singular). Now, we see this NAME in Acts used by the Apostles when they baptise - it is Yeshua.

There are many more, friends.

Regards,

Chris

Click to expand...

Modalism is a heresy in the church , the creeds were written to answer that heresy .

The denial of three being in one God is outside the parameters of professing Christianity .

On Modalism

****** Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God.* It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three consecutive modes, or forms.* Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times.* At the incarnation, the mode was the Son.* After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit.**These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous.* In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another.* Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
**** Present day groups that hold to this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches.* They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation.* These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods.* This is not what the Trinity is.* The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons:* The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.*
*****
read more here

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp

1) I am not a modalist. I have never said that "the three" cannot be simultaneous.

2) Scholarly consensus used to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth... Get your Aramaic expert to email me, that should be quite interesting!

"With the evidence of the Pentecost, the gospels were meant to be spread across the earth in all languages."

Are you sure? How often are we told to read the SCRIPTURES, which at that time was the OT, as teh NT was not written yet. HEAPS. Were the OT Scriptures written originally in Greek or Aramaic? No, they were written in Hebrew. How many people can speak Hebrew nowadays. Not that many... Your point is thus invalid.

peschitta_enthusiast said:

You lack the understanding that Father, Son , Spirit are MANIFESTATIONS of God, not persons. The word "logos/word" in Aramaic is "Miltha" which means "manifestation". And John 1, if "God" here is trinity, then we have "the Word (Jesus) was WITH the trinity --> 4 persons?!?! AND, "Jesus was that trinity" ---> ah so He is all three?!?!

If "God" is not trinity but "God the Father", then you have "And the Word (Jesus) was God the Father"

Click to expand...

"God" does not refer to the Trinity. It refers to the Father who is the source of the Trinity. (reference Nicene Creed). And your dilemma is false, since the Johannine passage declares the Word to be with God and to be God, cotemporaneously distinct and yet one. The proclamation of cotemporaneous distinction clearly eliminates the simplification you suggest. The solution is not the reduction of distinction you suggest, but rather the maintenaince of both, as the Church has declared and confessed throughout the ages. The Son is God because he is eternally begotten, and in this one identifier, we are shown that He is one with the Father, since He is of the Father, and yet he is not the Father, since the Father is unbegotten.

Note that ONLY a manifestation can be SAME and DISTINCT at once.

Click to expand...

But manifestations do not sufficiently maintain a distinction, which is why it has been rejected as a solution to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being God. It becomes outrageously problematic at the Cross, when the Son dies, but it is clear that the Father and the Spirit do not participate in this. If it were but a manifestation the the Father would have died as well, even as if I should die, all of my manifestations, as a father, a husband, and a son, would be deceased. There would be no situation where I died and my mother would morn the death of her son but my wife had not suffered the loss of her husband.

Not only that, but Paul says there is one true God, "Alaha Abba" - God the Father. If Jesus is God, He is either this "God the Father", or He is a false god.

Click to expand...

Of course Paul says that there is one true God, he was a monotheist after all. Fortunately, there are more solutions to our quandary than the two you offered. The third would be the one that the Nicene Creed offers, that the Son, while not being the Father, is one with the Father, being of the Father by eternal generation. He is not the Father, but lacks nothing, having received everything from the Father. Thus it is not the in essence that the Son is distinct, but rather in mode.

Also, Jesus said He would raise Himself in 3 days. Other verses say the Father did it. Hmm...

Click to expand...

I would suggest that since the Son has received all things from the Father (John 5 & 8), anything He does would be derived from the Father. Thus, even should the Son raise himself up, the Father is said to have done it, because the Son acts in accordance with the Father. But note that even here, this accord of the Son's actions with the Father's will speaks to their distinction in a way that would be ridiculous within a modalist context.

Also, the "trinity baptism formula" is the NAME (singular). Now, we see this NAME in Acts used by the Apostles when they baptise - it is Yeshua.

Click to expand...

But this proves nothing, since you are choosing to interpret the first by the second, and are educated in this prioritization by your modalist assumptions. I, not inhibited by these assumptions, am free to read the latter in accordance with the former, as is the Trinitarian way, and it is this interpretive principle that the Church has chosen through an intersection of consensus, ubiquity, and antiquity.

And there are many much more just like this indeed.

God bless,

Isaac

peschitta_enthusiast said:

1) I am not a modalist. I have never said that "the three" cannot be simultaneous.

Click to expand...

Excellent, and please disregard the modalist references in my previous post.

How then do you do you distinguish these manifestations? And how is it that they relate not only to us, but also to each other?

And how do you resolve this dilemma, since the example given is also one of simultaneous manifestations:

But manifestations do not sufficiently maintain a distinction, which is why it has been rejected as a solution to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being God. It becomes outrageously problematic at the Cross, when the Son dies, but it is clear that the Father and the Spirit do not participate in this. If it were but a manifestation the the Father would have died as well, even as if I should die, all of my manifestations, as a father, a husband, and a son, would be deceased. There would be no situation where I died and my mother would morn the death of her son but my wife had not suffered the loss of her husband.

Click to expand...

No dilemma. Jesus was both God and man. Obviously can God die? It was the flesh that died.

There is NO problem to Oneness believers when we are faced with "same" passages and with "distinct" passages, because manifestations can be both simultaneously. Does not the Word say that God was manifest in the flesh? Even Miltha means manifestation, proving that the Word is a manifestation of God.

As for the trintiy baptism formula, would you make the Apostles to contradict Jesus by not baptising in the name of trinity? they baptised in the name of Jesus. Either they were disobedient, or Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Regards,

Chris

btw we see the Father raised Jesus up, while Jesus said He would do it Himself. You cannot refute that and your argument makes no sense. This is a direct contradiction if Jesus is not the Father.