Peshitta Forum
An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: An important distinction in the Aramaic text (/showthread.php?tid=3080)

Pages: 1 2 3


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Thirdwoe - 06-05-2013

Can you please check that verse/passage out, Psalm 131:2-3, because it doesn't match either Lamsa or Bauscher's text and translation.

But, in any case...It certainly is true that Alaha/God is 'Marya'. And in Peshitta, both The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit are called 'Marya'...so, even if it just meant "Lord" in the generic since (which it dosen't), do we have two or three 'Lord's' to serve???

Not so... The Messiah said that He and His Father are ONE, and the Scriptures show us that The Holy Spirit is both The Spirit of The Father and The Spirit of The Son/The Messiah, at the same time.

The Messiah is revealed to be, and is directly called, 'God' a number of times in The Holy Scriptures, and we know that there can only be ONE God, not two of them.

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - IPOstapyuk - 06-05-2013

The above is taken from Ceriani_Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus
aramaic manuscript written around 6-7th century .
Quote: it doesn't match either Lamsa or Bauscher's text and translation.
From my point of view the Baustshcher is very biased translator and Lamsa is very strange translator with the question whose interests did he serve.

John 17:1 - These spake Jeshu; and, uplifting his eyes to heaven, he said, My Father, the hour hath come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.
Father in heaven, Son on earth. Simple. Jesus is Jesus and Father is Father.
If some people do not see the difference, I am sorry for them.

John 15:7 - But if you abide in me, and my words abide in you, all whatever you will to ask shall be unto you.
John 15:23 - He who hateth me, my Father also hateth.
John 15:4 - Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot give fruits of itself if it abide not in the vine, so also cannot you, if you abide not in me.
John 14:10 - Believest thou not that I am in my Father and my Father in me ?

We have problems when we take everything literally.
I believe that Bible language is figurative language.
Jesus wants His disciples would abide in Him as He abides in His Father.


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Thirdwoe - 06-05-2013

I understand that The Messiah is not His own Father. I don't have that problem. The Peshitta does rightly divide the humanity of The Messiah from His Divinity, but does not divide His Divinity from that of The Father. In His Divinity, Messiah is indeed YHWH, The Word manifested in the flesh, He who is God incarnate. See John 1:1: Again...a very important distinction found in The Aramaic Peshitta Text, and which The Holy Apostolic Church has preserved in the copies readings down through all these centuries, unchanged.

After a bit of searching, it looks like the verse is really in Psalm 136:2-3, which both Lamsa and Bauscher show, but, Bauscher does a little trick there I see.

Psa 136:3 "Give thanks to Lord of Dominions, for his mercies are to eternity." Bauscher
Psa 136:3 "O give thanks to the LORD of Lords; for his mercies endure forever." Lamsa

It is 'Marya'...and Lamsa puts 'The LORD', which Bauscher puts simply 'Lord', which seems strange to me. Marya is clearly God in this passage, not just some odd 'Lord'.

Peshitta clearly shows us that The Father is Marya, and that The Son is Marya, and that The Holy Spirit is Marya.

Shlama,
Chuck


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Thirdwoe - 06-06-2013

Also, how would you translate the Aramaic text of Deuteronomy 10:17?


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - distazo - 06-15-2013

IPOstapyuk Wrote:Here we have context helping us.
Ps. 131:2-3
" ..thank to the
God of Gods (Alaha d'alahe)
thank to the
Lord of Lords (Marya d'maravata)"
Clearly means that Marya means Lord.

Good point.
I abandonded the idea that marya stands for Lord Yah. But there is a very important side-node. I read from a well known source here, the 'linguistic evidence' that marya is not unique for YHWH at all.

Quote:When translating the Hebrew scriptures Jewish scribes have followed a long standing policy to not directly represent the Name of God but rather to substitute it with a foreign term that equates to lord or master. Certain voices1 in the Peshitta field of study have promoted a novel theory that the Aramaic term MRYA (m?rya), which means "the lord", is instead a direct representation of the personal Name of (YHWH). This theory is a slight-of-hand trick, an illusion, used to support the erroneous doctrine that Yeshua and YHWH are one and the same being or person. Those not familiar with Aramaic grammar may be easily convinced that the Aramaic Peshitta supports this blasphemy.

There are some groups, which I can call cults, including Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Moslems, who deny the holy trinity. This one above, especially, just sees Yeshu as a human, not as God. No wonder why he thinks that to apply 'marya' as Yah to Jesus is blasphemy!

In fact, EVEN the Greek supports this idea, through kurios!

This is not 'grammatical evidence' but theological evidence.

Take for instance 1 Peter 2:3. "You have tasted and seen that the Lord is gracious".
This is a citation of Psalms 34:8.
This clearly speaks about YHWH.
Also Paul applied YHWH as the Messiah (who is Yeshu)
1 Corinthians 10:4

And also take Zacharia 10:2. "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith YHWH"

Clearly, this is and has been Yeshu!

So, theologically, it is not wrong to write that Jesus is YHWH or MarYah.
However, not a pen or a book can convince, but just holy spirit can. We should leave it to the reader instead of forcing this idea of 'hypostasis' or trinity into a translation of any NT.

In the Latin (vulgate, the Comma Johanneum), we see that people had to be 'convinced' by writing this mystery, while the Original Bible did not describe this. So, if spirit lacks, we I expect human additions, but these are not necessary at all for inspired people who would understand that YHWH is THE Lord of All and the Aleph and the Taf.

Last but not least argument.
Yes, The POT has Lord of Lords as Marya di marwata.
We have such naming convention (Lord of gods) for the Greek god Zeus too!
In Acts 14:12,13
If 'marya' just means 'Lord' why is it then, not written as
Marya di Alahe?
No, it says:
"Mare di Alahe. "

So, I still do not consider kurios and marya to be equivalent words in two languages.

what about that ipostaryuk? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - IPOstapyuk - 06-15-2013

Is there any way to get notification to email if there is new post in certain thread cause
it is easy to forget many things and get lost?
Independent thinking is a serious attempt to get closer to God since God
gave to each of us His logic.
As for me, I do not see clearly that Jeshu is YHWH below.
Quote:Also Paul applied YHWH as the Messiah (who is Yeshu)
1 Corinthians 10:4

And also take Zacharia 10:2. "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith YHWH"

Clearly, this is and has been Yeshu!
1Corinthians 10:4 - and they all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that attended them, and that rock was the Messiah.
YHWH being among Israelites was a common state.
I try not to take Bible literally but figuratively and not start a doctrine on a certain
word(s).


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - distazo - 06-15-2013

IPOstapyuk Wrote:Is there any way to get notification to email if there is new post in certain thread cause
it is easy to forget many things and get lost?
Independent thinking is a serious attempt to get closer to God since God
gave to each of us His logic.
As for me, I do not see clearly that Jeshu is YHWH below.
Quote:Also Paul applied YHWH as the Messiah (who is Yeshu)
1 Corinthians 10:4

And also take Zacharia 2:10. "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith YHWH"

Clearly, this is and has been Yeshu!
1Corinthians 10:4 - and they all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that attended them, and that rock was the Messiah.
YHWH being among Israelites was a common state.
I try not to take Bible literally but figuratively and not start a doctrine on a certain
word(s).

Zecharia 2:10 predicts the coming of Christ/Messiah who would live among man.
If you have evidence this verse was already fulfilled and I understand it wrongly, please explain.

John 1:18 and 6:46 explains that nobody has seen the Father, but the Son.

(Also compare Hebrews 1:9-11 which is a citation from Psalms 110:26,27, and Hebrews 1 ONLY is about Jesus, not about the Father)

It is clear that YHWH has spoken on several occassions with man (eg with Abraham), in the OT. Since exegesis is deductive reasoning, it was Jesus himself and this is not a doctrine. If it is, in that case, the whole NT is a doctrine which should be laid aside.

So, for me, it is clear that YHWH = Jesus (and so is marya). Because it is true. But I just would not translate it as YHWH, like that as I have explained before. If the ancient Syriac or Assyrian speaking christians would have seen need to write YHWH in Aramaic or MarYah, they certainly would have done.


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - IPOstapyuk - 06-16-2013

Quote:John 1:18 and 6:46 explains that nobody has seen the Father, but the Son.
Matth. 18:10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
Acts 7:30-32
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Ynys rw=d 0rbdmb hl Yzxt0[/font]
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]...0ynsb 0dqyd 0rwnb 0yrmd hk0lm[/font]
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0hl0 0n0 0n0 * .fqb 0yrm hl rm0[/font]
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]...Qxsy0dw Mhrb0d hhl0 .<yhb0d[/font]

7:30 AND when forty years were there fulfilled to him, there
appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai the angel of the Lord in a
flame that burned in a bush.
7:31 And while Musha looked, he wondered at the sight. And as he
drew near to gaze, the Lord spake to him with the voice:
7:32 I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham and of Ishok and
of Jakub.



Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Thirdwoe - 06-16-2013

What is your point, Ivan? Not sure what your wanting to say there.


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - distazo - 06-16-2013

IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:John 1:18 and 6:46 explains that nobody has seen the Father, but the Son.
Matth. 18:10 See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Excuse my citation you know what I mean. No MAN has seen the father.
Since Jesus himself is HE, the IAM he is God himself and it was Yeshu who walked on the earth, spoke with Abraham, Adam, Moses etc. Not the Father.
I can show you many texts which proof that YHWH = Yeshu and that they even share the same names and titles and that they are one, but not the same person, but one godhead.

Maybe you are an becoming an unitarian like the Jehovahs witnesses, in that case I understand your issue with marya <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> if this is not the case, what is really the problem. Some people have said that marya = mar-Jahweh grammatically?

Well, let them speak. I just told my opinion and leave it tat that.


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Thirdwoe - 06-16-2013

Yes....The Messiah makes it a bit clearer, for us mere mortals, when He said that except for Himself, "no man has seen The Father...," John 6:46

So, if it was not The Father, whom a number of men had seen throughout history as recorded in the OT...then guess who it was, who is both called, and revealed to be God in Scripture, yet is not The Father Himself as to His individuality.

John 1:1 and 1:14, gives us the answer.


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - IPOstapyuk - 06-16-2013

John 6:46 - There is no man who hath seen the Father, but he who is from Aloha, he hath seen the Father.
I just did not remember the exact wording. Better to put whole verses than its numbers
so that people would not keep searching.
In the burning bush above mentioned looks like angel is called Marya too.
When in plural is pronounced 'maraye' and singular 'marya' then why singular is not pronounced 'maraya'?
I just cannot accept formula Jesus = Lord YA when YA = YHWH.
No direct proof exists. If it is yes than Jesus is Son of Himself and not Son of God.
First Christians called Marya as Kurios and Dominos in Greek and Latin respectively which both mean Lord.
If we accept Jesus = YHWH then what is the name of His Father?


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - Thirdwoe - 06-16-2013

Justin Martyr, in the 5th Chapter of his 1st defense of the Faith to the Romans in about 150 A.D. says this. "But unto The Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given."


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - IPOstapyuk - 06-16-2013

Thirdwoe wrote
Quote:Justin Martyr, in the 5th Chapter of his 1st defense of the Faith to the Romans in about 150 A.D. says this. "But unto The Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given."
I think he knew more than us and probably he was right.
As mentioned above when angel of Marya says I am God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so
what is happening? We may come to understanding to what is Elohim and Haelohim.
Those who seek for the truth will find it.
John 4:24
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0xwrb .hl Nydgsd Nyly0w .0hl0 ryg wh 0xwr[/font]
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jwdgsnd fw 0rr4bw[/font]

John 4:24 - For Aloha is a Spirit; and they who worship him, in spirit and in truth must worship.


Re: An important distinction in the Aramaic text - distazo - 06-16-2013

IPOstapyuk Wrote:John 6:46 - There is no man who hath seen the Father, but he who is from Aloha, he hath seen the Father.
I just did not remember the exact wording. Better to put whole verses than its numbers
so that people would not keep searching.
In the burning bush above mentioned looks like angel is called Marya too.
When in plural is pronounced 'maraye' and singular 'marya' then why singular is not pronounced 'maraya'?
I just cannot accept formula Jesus = Lord YA when YA = YHWH.
No direct proof exists. If it is yes than Jesus is Son of Himself and not Son of God.
First Christians called Marya as Kurios and Dominos in Greek and Latin respectively which both mean Lord.
If we accept Jesus = YHWH then what is the name of His Father?

Why would this be the case? Of course Jesus is not son of himself. The one godhead exists of 3 persons. When the father spoke from heaven where public heard it too (John 12:29), Jesus did not speak to himself, but his Father from heaven.

Maybe you could study Hebrews chapter 1. Especially verses 10-12. It is a citation of Psalms 102:26 and more.

Is Psalms speaking 102:26 about whom? About YHWH right? If not, correct me!
Hebrews 1 is only about Jesus. All those citations are about Jesus. If not, correct me!
So, just this simple example shows that Jesus = YHWH. In that line it is safe to conclude that Jesus = Maran Yahweh. However, the Assyrian/Syriac language does not justify such a translation. Still, the conclusion (to me) is that Jesus=YHWH.
In addition, Jesus shares all the titles of his father.