Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic spoken in Gibson's "The Passion" is faked
#1
Ran acrossed an interesting article while doing one of aramaic scripture search ending searches, (I don't recall it being discussed here, but then again I was reading everything that was posted on this site when "the PAssion" was a new movie). So I thought I would share it with you Akhis.


taken from
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/viewtopic.php?t=193">http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/v ... .php?t=193</a><!-- m -->


The Aramaic spoken in Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is faked.

The movie portrays a language loosely based on the modern Chaldean-Arabic. The bottom line is that it's absolute gibberish, yet people who don't know the difference are being misled regarding its tauted authenticity. Once again, history is being re-written, and this time what is alleged to be authentic is not.

The name of the Lord in the original Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew language is in two syllables, E-sho, which is then trans-literated as Eashoa the Messiah.

The English name "Jesus Christ" in the true Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew language is pronounced:

Ea-shoa' M'shee-kha


Eashoa' means "the Life-Giver"
M'sheekha means "the Anointed One"
Eashoa' M'sheekha means "The Anointed Life-Giver"

In the Ancient Aramaic, the name for Jesus is spelled "yeh-sheen-waw-ein." In English the "yeh" becomes "J," the "sheen" becomes "s," the "waw" becomes a "u," and the "ein," becomes an "s." Now, this might not sound like the same name, but since three of the four letters in the name don't have English language equivalents, the English pronunciation had to be modified. Eashoa' and "Jesus" are the very same name, albeit the transliterations are of two very different languages with four thousand years of divergent evolution.

In the Mel Gibson movie, the Chaldean-Arabic name Yeshua is used. In fact, there is a large Christian movement within the U.S. that no longer refers to "Jesus" in English. They insist that the word "Yeshua" is the only correct or authentic name to use. But the modern Arabic-Chaldean "Yeshua" is simply a distortion of the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew name Eashoa'.

The name of Christ comes from the Greek word for "anointed." The Greek word "Khristos" comes from the word for "oil." The English language is based on the Latin, which in turn is based on the Greek. The word Msheekhah is the original word for "The Anointed." Another good choice for "Christ" is the Messiah -- again from M'sheekhah. It is the same word in all the languages, designating Jesus as the Messiah.

This further leads to the fallacy that the name of Eashoa is not mentioned in the Old Testament. However, Eashoa' is the correct Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew name of the Lord as written in the Old Testament, and it means "Life-Giver" or "Savior."

If the name is not going to be pronounced correctly, then everyone had might as well just say "Jesus." At least everyone understands what "Jesus" means as it's the Anglicized name for Eashoa'.
Reply
#2
WAS JESUS CHRIST FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER-GOD?

There is a complete rejection of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures in the Mel Gibson movie. For example, the pronunciation of Jesus' words from the Cross in Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew is Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani. In the movie, we hear the words Ullahi, Ullahi, lema sabactani which is translated in error as My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.

This utterance by Eashoa' while on the Cross is fully retained in all the the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures, but its transliteration is in total error. Nowhere in the Aramaic Scriptures does the word sh'wik-thani mean "forsaken." On this passage alone may hang the entire misinterpretation of the Scriptures by Western Christianity.

The Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic text of the passage accurately reads Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani and there is no translation or addition after it, such as "Why has thou forsaken me," because there's no need to translate the Ancient Aramaic. This passage, as well as the entire New Testament, is already written in the Ancient Aramaic texts and needs no "add-ons."

In the original ancient Aramaic, the passage spoken literally says in English, "I AM, I AM, wherefore have you left me?" The Aramaic word Eil is a title of God, "IS" or "I AM." Idiomatically, l'ma-na (wherefore) implies destiny. Sh'wik-thani means "left me" in the sense of the purpose for which Jesus was left on the cross. It absolutely does not mean "forsaken" in this usage.

This fallacy has evolved out of the modern Chaldean-Arabic version of the Bible, the very version that the Greek and the Latin Vulgate are translated from, as well as the 1611 King James Version and all other Western Bibles. They all have changed this passage and declared - without any authenticity or written proof - that the Father-God forsook His Son.

Now, this Mel Gibson film comes on the world stage unintentionally exposing this hypocrisy of the Western churches. On the one hand, the mainstream Christian churches of the West claim that the New Testament was written in Greek; and on the other hand, they retain the Chaldean-Arabic passage in the Text of their Bibles. One could not be more ironic if they had tried.
Reply
#3
So did one of you from this web site write this essay?
Reply
#4
oozeaddai Wrote:In the Mel Gibson movie, the Chaldean-Arabic name Yeshua is used. In fact, there is a large Christian movement within the U.S. that no longer refers to "Jesus" in English. They insist that the word "Yeshua" is the only correct or authentic name to use. But the modern Arabic-Chaldean "Yeshua" is simply a distortion of the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew name Eashoa'.

"Yeshua" is a Hebrew word that means "salvation."

An example is in Exodus (Sh'mot) 15:

Exodus 15:2 "YHWH is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; This is my El, and I will praise Him; My father's Elohim, and I will extol Him.

The phrase "my salvation" is yeshuati, my yeshuah, or "my salvation."

It is, of course, related to the word Yehoshua, Joshua, meaning Yah's salvation or salvation of Yah.

Blessings and peace,
Wayne
Reply
#5
Shlama kalhown,

I am very tired of hearing and reading criticism of others who have done something wonderful ,whose critics would never even attempt to do , much less improve upon. They are spectators sitting on the sidelines yelling profanities at those doing the hard work of performing something difficult for the benefit of others.
I and many others have been greatly blessed by Mel Gibson's work - "The Passion of The Christ." I believe he was led by God in its production. The Aramaic in the movie was not faked. Most Aramaeans who saw the movie were thrilled to hear Aramaic spoken on a big screen from a script of the Gospel story.

What do you eat when you get up , Oozeaddai, green persimmons ? How many Aramaeans agree with your view of the movie and of our Lord's cry from the cross ?
I doubt there are many.

There are two Aramaic versions in the gospels of the cry from the cross, in Mark and in Matthew. There is also the Hebrew and Aramaic of Psalms 22:1 . I know the Hebrew text cannot mean what you claim Yeshua (Eshoo) said- [and BTW, Yeshua is not the phonetic spelling, simply the written transliteration of the Aramaic , which is identical to the Hebrew].
The Hebrew is the original text and language of the Tanach.
The Messiah's words were recorded there 1000 years before He uttered them, and the entire Psalm 22 is a prophecy of His crucifixion. The Hebrew decides the meaning. Your theology cannot decide it, for your theology is not the arbiter of the truth of scripture. Scripture is the arbiter of theology and falsehood.

There is too much tail wagging the dog in religious opinion and doctrine.
What weight can our words have against one word of the Eternal ?

Burktha w' shlama b' Meshikha,

Dave B
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply
#6
Shlama all--

I loved "Passion of the Christ", and if the language was made up, I was amazed that I understood it so well. It is true they did not use the Peshitta text as they should have, but these are Roman Catholics who are calling the shots here. Furthermore, I am amazed that George Kiraz made a comment that he could understand it well even though it was not his western dialect, but I guess that doesn't count either, because once again the language was made up.

Nevertheless, not only could I make out a great deal of the Aramaic without looking at the subtitles (such as "Judas, you betray the Son of Man with a kiss.") I could even tell when they switched to biblical Hebrew for some of the Pharisees and of course recognized the women singing "mah nishtana ha laila hazeh" with perfect accents. Again, how could I tell if they did not get it right?

Furthermore, this was EASTERN Aramaic (Rev Fulco did get it wrong when he called it Western on the website), for I distinctly heard the AH's in all the right places, not the OHs that characterize the other dialect.

The movie is a masterpiece. I was totally blown away by it and had to admit that all the broo-ha-hah about Anti Semitism was also total bunk. It told the Gospel story. No more and no less. And the Aramaic gave me a sense of historicity (along with the first truly realistic depiction of crucifixion ever brought to the screen) that no other Jesus film even approaches.

I can't speak for others, but I bought the DVD almost the minute it hit the shelves.

Way to go Mel!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#7
QUOTE
What do you eat when you get up , Oozeaddai, green persimmons ? How many Aramaeans agree with your view of the movie and of our Lord's cry from the cross ?
I doubt there are many.
QUOTE

Oh I enjoyed the movie.

But since this is thee, Biblical Aramaic discussion board. I figured I would post the story. Since folks at a more general board are kind of sick about hearing about Aramaic (With the little I have talked about it). And I was curious "what the experts" thought.
Reply
#8
Shlomo alkun

Maybe some of you already know , but the "Jesus film" can
be seen online with a western syriac (classical , not modern) dubbing.
(There is also a neo-assyrian and chaldean versions)
The dubbing is great , it's like a living peshitta (peshitto in fact...)


Even if i really liked the Passion , it think it would have been better
to dub the aramaic dialogues with assyrian voices like in the
Jesus film. To me it the aramaic in the Passion really sounded like
ashkenazi hebrew.

the link for the syriac film :

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.inspirationalfilms.com/av/jf/v14022.ram">http://www.inspirationalfilms.com/av/jf/v14022.ram</a><!-- m -->


That was my two cents :-)

Ilan
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)