Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About George M. Lamsa and Rocco Errico
#31
Hey Christina,

Christina Wrote:I'm battling to follow this. What's up with this "Munahhemana/menahhemana" (could be a typo)?

"Me-nakh-ma-na" in Aramaic comes from the same root as the name of Noah ("nukh"), yes the Ark-building Noah. The root means "comfort/rest". "Me-nakh-ma-na" is an adjective formed from that root, so it simply means "comforter" or "one who gives rest."

It's like how Targum (translate) becomes the adjective "Me-tar-gum-ma-na" ("meturgeyman" in popular spelling), which means "one who translates".

This word is used all over the liturgy in the CoE to refer to the Holy Spirit.

It is found nowhere in the NT, in any version.

The Muslim apologists, ever convinced that we changed the NT after Islam arrived (even though copies exist that are way older than Islam...go figure), then tried to say that the Greek loan-word, Paraclete, found in the Peshitta....was originally Menekhmana (wrong, but lets move on), and somehow they've tied this to the Arabic word "Muhammed" which means nothing close to Menekhmana. Unless the prophet of Islam was named Noah or Menahem, I don't see the connection.

Do you remember the Israeli politician named Menahem Begin? That's his name. So according to Islamic logic maybe the NT was referring to him? =)

On a side note, what exactly was "comforting" about Muhammed? I don't get it - I can't think of a more inappropriate attribute for someone. Well, I suppose he did put a lot of people "to rest." <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply
#32
Hey Christina,

Christina Wrote:But...

From a spiritual view, and taking your explanation into account this is the impression I get on what the shahada states:

"There is NO god but THE God and Muhammad is HIS prophet"

As Orthodox Christians and Jews, we should have no problem with the 1st part of the creed which constitutes the acceptance of Islam. We already knew it, thank you very much.....but we nevertheless believe it as well. It's the 2nd phrase we have a problem with.

Look at it from the point of view of Arab Christians, it's their title they've used for God for centuries......before Islam came and turned the Cradle of Civilization into a pimple on the arse of the world.

Why should they change? It's their name. Islam learned it from them, not the other way around.
Reply
#33
Paul Younan Wrote:"Me-nakh-ma-na" in Aramaic comes from the same root as the name of Noah ("nukh"), yes the Ark-building Noah. The root means "comfort/rest". "Me-nakh-ma-na" is an adjective formed from that root, so it simply means "comforter" or "one who gives rest."

It's like how Targum (translate) becomes the adjective "Me-tar-gum-ma-na" ("meturgeyman" in popular spelling), which means "one who translates".

This word is used all over the liturgy in the CoE to refer to the Holy Spirit.

It is found nowhere in the NT, in any version.

In John 14:16 we see the word, in the Peshitta, "paraqleta" (or "paraqleita") which has been translated by some as "comforter" and/or "advocate", "helper", "counselor", "consoler" in reference to the Holy Spirit.

In Hebrew translations of the NT we see the use of the word "menachem" (or "menacheim") ??????????????

The thought of this term having anything to do with "Mohammed", as explained by some, is preposterous.
Reply
#34
Paul Younan Wrote:Hey Christina,

Christina Wrote:But...

From a spiritual view, and taking your explanation into account this is the impression I get on what the shahada states:

"There is NO god but THE God and Muhammad is HIS prophet"

As Orthodox Christians and Jews, we should have no problem with the 1st part of the creed which constitutes the acceptance of Islam. We already knew it, thank you very much.....but we nevertheless believe it as well. It's the 2nd phrase we have a problem with.

Look at it from the point of view of Arab Christians, it's their title they've used for God for centuries......before Islam came and turned the Cradle of Civilization into a pimple on the arse of the world.

Why should they change? It's their name. Islam learned it from them, not the other way around.

Thank you for your honesty <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> , I'm glad that you're straight forward and to the point, and you have taught me a lot concerning this. It's just that we westerners have been so ignorant about the east for so long, and Muslim apologists are taking advantage of this, can anyone say "kithman" and "taqiya"? I see that I did make a bigger deal outa this than I should've, but I wanted to get to the core of this issue and I hope that I didn't offend you.

I see now that Arab Christians don't find the term "Allah" offensive or intimidating and since they don't make a big deal outa this I will no longer do so. I wanted honest answers and that's what you gave me so thank you very much for that.

BTW I'd like to know more about how our brothers & sisters in the Mid East have coped under Islam & how they are handling the situation today. Can you recommed some reading material?

Thank you again akhi Paul, for being a resource that I can trust.
Shlama.
Reply
#35
Paul Younan Wrote:Hey Christina,

Christina Wrote:I'm battling to follow this. What's up with this "Munahhemana/menahhemana" (could be a typo)?

"Me-nakh-ma-na" in Aramaic comes from the same root as the name of Noah ("nukh"), yes the Ark-building Noah. The root means "comfort/rest". "Me-nakh-ma-na" is an adjective formed from that root, so it simply means "comforter" or "one who gives rest."

It's like how Targum (translate) becomes the adjective "Me-tar-gum-ma-na" ("meturgeyman" in popular spelling), which means "one who translates".

This word is used all over the liturgy in the CoE to refer to the Holy Spirit.

It is found nowhere in the NT, in any version.

The Muslim apologists, ever convinced that we changed the NT after Islam arrived (even though copies exist that are way older than Islam...go figure), then tried to say that the Greek loan-word, Paraclete, found in the Peshitta....was originally Menekhmana (wrong, but lets move on), and somehow they've tied this to the Arabic word "Muhammed" which means nothing close to Menekhmana. Unless the prophet of Islam was named Noah or Menahem, I don't see the connection.

Do you remember the Israeli politician named Menahem Begin? That's his name. So according to Islamic logic maybe the NT was referring to him? =)

On a side note, what exactly was "comforting" about Muhammed? I don't get it - I can't think of a more inappropriate attribute for someone. Well, I suppose he did put a lot of people "to rest." <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

(edited)

Ah, so that's story, thanks for clearing that up akhi Paul (sorry just realized that it was you who posted this, but thanks to Yaaquob for his imput as well), it's important to know these things if one engages in dialogue with Muslims.

And I agree "comforter" is arguably the least appropriate attribute for Muhammad. And I've seen Muslim apologists play this kind of word game before with verses of the Tanakh, eg: Song of Songs 5:16, Hebrew "machmad" = "ahmad".

Absolutely ludacrious IMO <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->
Reply
#36
Rafa Wrote:There's a great video on Youtube where a guy callled Ahmeed Deedat claims Mohammed is the holy spirit... What's even worse is a 5 year old could have handled that argument better- their man claims "Machmad" in the book of songs is referring to Muhammed (ridiculous), he then goes on one hour later to say that the book of songs is (hold yourselves!) "pornographic" and a love letter King Shlomo sent to a concubine!

<!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

Pathetic
Reply
#37
Pathetic indeed! As for Shir HaShirim being pornographic, one should ask Sayd Deedat if the fact that Muhammad married a nine year old girl is a good story to tell children <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: -->
Reply
#38
Christina Wrote:Pathetic indeed! As for Shir HaShirim being pornographic, one should ask Sayd Deedat if the fact that Muhammad married a nine year old girl is a good story to tell children <!-- s:mad: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mad.gif" alt=":mad:" title="Mad" /><!-- s:mad: -->

Good point Christina.
Reply
#39
Sam Shamoun on answering-islam.org, although not a monk, is an Assyrian. He does a very good job I think. Not my cup of tea, but the guy's a warrior.
Reply
#40
Yeah I've read some of Sam Shamoun's articles on AnsweringIslam.org and boy does he know his stuff! Overal AnsweringIslam.org is a very good apologetic site. The main guy they deal with is Jamal Badawi another notorious Muslim apologist. And the even more notorious apologist of AnsweringChristianity.com, Osama Abdallah, Dheedat is a naughty schoolboy compared to Osama, if you really wanna get sick check out his site, worst blasphemy I've ever come across.
Reply
#41
Rafa Wrote:I wonder if he now follows the Aramean tradition perhaps thanks to lots of debates with this Mr.Shamoun?

Good question, anyone going up against Shamoun usually gets spanked pretty well. I wouldn't wanna tussle with him.
Reply
#42
Rafa Wrote:Worst than Deedat claiming Tanakh teaches eating stool? Worst than him claiming the book of songs is pornography? Worst than Deedat saying that the chapter in Revelations on Mystery Babylon being destroyed by the Beast is a lesson on having sex with animals and feeding them human flesh? I HIGHLY doubt you can get worst than that. <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: --> What irritates me here is that this is willful ignorance since Deedat changes many verses and doesn't give his references (not that anybody takes him seriously on our side).

Good point Rafa. I'm not as familiar with Dheedat's work as I am with Abdallah's. Considering what you said, I would say that Abdallah would give Deedat serious competition, he'a at least as bad as Deedat, Deedat was probably his mentor. If you go to AnsweringChristianity.com you'll see what I mean, Abdallah's blasphemy can easily rival Deedat's.
Reply
#43
Quote:Also, in the Arabic writings of the CoE before Islam arrived, we had communities in Yemen and Arabia and elsewhere, and they used this name.

Interesting. Did Arab Christians before Islam call Yeshua "Yasu", "Yashou" or "Isa"?

Blessings.
Reply
#44
Dear sister Christina in Yashua, Berek Alaha! I know this is in responce to a post you made several years ago,but I coulnt help but to respond and say I couldnt agree more about an official,Church sponsered and supervised English translation of the Peshitta to be made that would be acceptable by not only the COE but also by the Syrian Orthodox,who by the way,are not monophysite contrary to the false picture some history has painted them with together with the other Oriental-non chalcedonian Orthdox churches which are the Syrian,Syrian Malankara Orthodox,Armenian,Coptic,and Ethiopain and Eretrian Orthodox churches.The Syrian Orthodox,together with the other Oriental Orthodox churches that they are in union with have never been monophysites but have always believed in the proper,orthodox christology that our Lord has 2 natures,the perfectly Divine and the perfectly human,but they are united into one composite nature in the one prosopon-person of our Lord and Saviour Yashua.They have always professed the proper Orthodox teaching of the fulness and completeness of both of our Lord's Divine nature,and human nature,but that since the incarnation both our Lord;s Divine and human nature are united into the one united composite nature of our Lord,God and Saviour Yashua Msheekha.The Chalcedonians (Eastern Orthodox)also properly confess the fulness and completeness of bot our Lord's Divine and Human nature which are united in te hypostatic union of our Lord and in the one prosopon -person of our Lord. This is the same christology that Mar Nestorius confessed properly from the Antiochian school,the need to acknowledge both the distinctness of the 2 natures of our Lord,the divine and human,and to recognise the fulness and perfection of both natures,but that they are united in the one prosopon -person of our Lord,God and Saviour Yashua Mshieekha.We all believe the same christicological truth and need to come together as we,the ancient Syriac Christian churches are the direct daughter church of the original mother church of Jerusalem and have preserved by the power of the Ruach Ha Kodesh the original Orthodox,semitic,Judao-Christian spirituality,mysticism,liturgy,praxis,idealogy,practice,Apostolic succesion and Holy manner and methods of the true original church founded by our Mari and Alaha Yashua.Exspecially the COE and the Syrian Orthodox,but also the Maronites(although they have been severely latinised)and the Chaldean who although being united with Rome still maintain the fulnness of the practice and theology of the COE(with the exception of the RCatholic use of statues)and also the Syrian Malankara Orthodox church who are Indian but under the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch and Syrian rite.There is also the independent Malankara Syrian church of India who are united with the Oriental Orthodox but have there own Catholicose. We all share such a beautiful common tradition it would be wonderful to see the true Orthodox Syriac churches,both COE with Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Rite Catholics come together and make a unified translation into English of the Holy Peshitta with commentary from the great Syriac fathers like Theodore of Mopsuestia,St.Ephrem the Syrian,Narsai,Aphrahaat,Diodore,St.Issac the Syrian,St.John of ?Dalyatha,Macarius,Jacob of Sarug,ect,ect,ect.We have so much in common we shoul be able to come together.This is wishful thinking but with God all things are possible./as our Lord says in St.John:17:21-23-"That they may be one,as you my Father in Me and I in You,so that they also may be one in Us so that the world will know that You have sent Me.And the glory which You gave Me I gave to Them so that they may be one as We are one.I in them and You in Me that they may be perfected into one and that the world may know that You have sent Me and that You have loved them also as You have Loved Me".I own and study all of the good published English trans of the Peshitta and have truthfully learned from all of them./shamasha Pauls trans is the best but not published into syntaxical English. I love Roth's trans but really feel his own Netzari Jewish faith has couloured his trans in a handful of areas that disturb me. I enjoy Alexanders new edition of the Aramaic New Testament as he has inserted the proper Divine names of Alaha and Eashua but has left out Maryah which Roth should have used instead of Master YWHW and Elohim which are of course Hebrew and not Aramaic and the Peshitta is Aramaic.His(Roth)translating the word for cross into stake is wrong and also because of his religious sentiments as it is commonly known the Romans crucified thier victims on a horizontal beam with the victims outstreched arms through the wrists which was affixed to the upright vertical beam where the feet were nailed through./alexanders idiomatic trans is beautiful but has a handful of errors.Murdocks is good but outated in its English as is Etheridges.Paskas is good.I like Magiera's messianic version best as she has used the Divine names properly,Maryah,Alaha, Yashua,Mshieekha,ect plus reads very thoroughly and smooth while being faithful to the Peshitta text.Her trans is also free of any Lamsaisms which is remarkable considering her previous connection with him and his underlings.I still respect Lamsa's but obviously dissagree with his heretical disbelief in demons and the devil.His old tstament is quite good and accurate.It would be great to see an official Syriac church endorsed trans from any of the Syriac churches.There is a project underway which is Church endorsed by the Syriac churches in translating the Peshitta into the modern vernaculars of Aramaic called Aramaic translations.org I believe.I will post it on my next post for those who are interested.It would be nice if they were to make a unified English translation.In Yashua,Deacon Michael.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)