Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Good Wednesday or Good Friday?
#61
Hi rramlow,

I agree with your sentiments, again my sincere apologies for sounding harsh, let us discuss as you have said in love and kindness and let us learn from one another.

Cheers
Alan
Reply
#62
Interestingly enough, with some info sent me by a friend and through some searches here I have been able to somewhat confirm that indeed orowta/arubtha/etc. (in Mark 15:42) is cognate to Hebrew erev, as I was told before. If that premise is true, logically it can be held that Arubtha doesn't literally mean "preparation", but perhaps "sunset/darkness/evening" instead. As a name for an entire day of the week, Erev/Arubtha is literally untrue. It's therefore reasonable to suppose it's most likely a cultural or religious term. Thanks konway87 and Paul Younan! Your inputs were most helpful. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Now that I feel there is a reliably firm basis for holding Arubtha as a figurative/metaphoric name, there also comes the inevitable question as to the actual meaning and origin of applying the term to Weekday 6 (English Friday).

=====

Dear Paul,

If I recall correctly, you offered an explanation for the above question. I think that it consisted largely of relating a belief that labeling Weekday 6 as Arubtha is an intentional reference, by Aramaic Christians, to the blotting of the sun on Crucifixion day. The manner in which you conveyed the information led me to suppose you were relating a CoE traditional belief. Please confirm whether this is so.
Reply
#63
rramlow Wrote:Dear Paul,

If I recall correctly, you offered an explanation for the above question. I think that it consisted largely of relating a belief that labeling Weekday 6 as Arubtha is an intentional reference, by Aramaic Christians, to the blotting of the sun on Crucifixion day. The manner in which you conveyed the information led me to suppose you were relating a CoE traditional belief. Please confirm whether this is so.

That is true. Only the Christian Semites refer to Friday as "(A)rubtha" (Erev in Hebrew).
Reply
#64
Paul Younan Wrote:That is true. Only the Christian Semites refer to Friday as "(A)rubtha" (Erev in Hebrew).

This seems to check out, at least in the Aramaic - I can't find any non-Christians using "(A)rubtha" to label Weekday 6. I think I just might begin using it. I prefer non-pagan day-names. Thanks, Paul. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply
#65
Now if we only had non-pagan names for our Aramaic and Hebrew months, we'd be all set. ;(
Reply
#66
<!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> It's hard to just go by numerals when all around me people use (and expect use of) these names. Despite that, actually I will still periodically go on spurts of using numerals instead... I can be a little compulsive about some things.

Like objective evidence, for example.

Speaking of which... I must apologize for my quirks, because eventually they do show through. One of them is that I am a little compulsive about objective evidence. Being a Quality Auditor hasn't helped me grow past it, either. I beg your patience with me. Some things which others take for granted as fact may seem to me as unwarranted leaps. To understand why someone else would believe something, I occasionally need to be walked-through step-by-step. I may need to ask questions about the nature of each step. Sometimes it has happened that a particular step is incompatible with my available modes of thought... in such cases I may be unable to follow. I may even point out the areas I find problematic and the particular type of difficulty. I apologize if this ever frustrates anyone; that's not my intent. I just have my own (pretty firm) concept of proper ratiocination/reasoning and deviations from that framework can feel mentally uncomfortable.

So, apologies all around in advance. I am not trying to be an ass - it's just effortless. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply
#67
Dear Paul,

Do you figure liturgical/sacred days from sunset to sunset? For instance, do you regularly consider the beginning of "(A)rubtha" to coincide with European "Thursday sunset" and the closing to coincide with European "Friday sunset"?
Reply
#68
rramlow Wrote:Dear Paul,

Do you figure liturgical/sacred days from sunset to sunset? For instance, do you regularly consider the beginning of "(A)rubtha" to coincide with European "Thursday sunset" and the closing to coincide with European "Friday sunset"?

I think we recognize it as the eve of that particular day. So I think we do actually view it as Friday.
Reply
#69
Alan G77 Wrote:
rramlow Wrote:Dear Paul,

Do you figure liturgical/sacred days from sunset to sunset? For instance, do you regularly consider the beginning of "(A)rubtha" to coincide with European "Thursday sunset" and the closing to coincide with European "Friday sunset"?

I think we recognize it as the eve of that particular day. So I think we do actually view it as Friday.
Thanks, Alan G77!

It's always warming to hear where else that practice has been kept. Do you figure all days in this manner, or has that view diminished to only "(A)rubtha"?
Reply
#70
Hi rmanlow.

Yes, we do go by the sunset rule, as when breaking fasts or starting them. The day begins or ends at sunset as opposed to midnight.
Reply
#71
Paul Younan Wrote:Yes, we do go by the sunset rule, as when breaking fasts or starting them. The day begins or ends at sunset as opposed to midnight.
Dear Paul,

That you've maintained yet another ancient and apostolic practice there is so beautiful - halleluYah. I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to praise God and build up another when I see them at a good thing.

"Blessed are you, Lord YHWH our God, who establishes and maintains a witness for your truth."

As background so we get to know each other, I should mention that I also keep this "sunset rule" as you call it. For fasts and more. I was raised to figure every day's end at sunset, and the next beginning at that same time. I'm so glad to hear you do that to any degree. It seems many people think Semitic cultural practices like yours have no substance for the modern Believer, but I think that view is a mistake. Even if these practices were just little things, the little things still add up... Historically the Word of YHWH was delivered largely to Semites through Semites, and God did not miss the opportunity to exploit culture as a teaching tool to convey fundamental truths. If then (after the giving of the Word), a culture changes relevant practices/perceptions over time, the Word could become harder for those people to understand. Where would that lead? Perhaps holding onto even the little things from the Apostles is then very important.

Teachers are expected to teach, and so they do. However, even with the purest intentions, when original & correct meanings are lost, other meanings are promoted instead. Not being original or correct they are what, then? I doubt this has only happened once or twice down the ages... especially with so many different denominations. I don't say this to question everyone's sincerity. Merely to remember that sincerity isn't enough. Sincerity is only a partner to truth - not its replacement. So, does this kind of drift ever happen in sincere believing churches? If so, isn't it a vulnerability?

Comments?

-Raymond Ramlow
Reply
#72
Shlama Raymond,

Thank you for your insights. Also it is important to remember that other words are also derived from this root, "a-r-b" (which means literally, "to sink" - as in the sun sinks). For instance, our word in Aramaic for "West" is "Ma-ar-wa" ("the setting"), I believe the Hebrew word is Ma'arav. So there's even a direction named from the sunset.

The concept is even older than Abraham. In ancient Semitic (Akkadian), the word was "Erebu" for the verb "to sink". They also said "Erebu Shamshi" for "the setting/sinking of the sun." This is the ancient Semitic stock from which Abraham arose, his people in ancient Babylonia which is today in Iraq.

So it may not come as a surprise that this isn't really an apostolic or biblical thing, it is much older as so many things in the Hebrew civilization. Like the names of the months, etc. They all were used before in Mesopotamia. It is our (western civilization) link to the cradle of civilization as per the story in Genesis.

So what I'm trying to say before going off on a tangent (and Robert will point this out!) is that this was how time was kept always, since the beginning even before there were any scriptures to speak of. It wasn't really an accomplishment on our church's part, they just kept time like they did before there was a concept of the next day starting at 12:00am.

+Shamasha
Reply
#73
Shlama Paul!

I really enjoyed your post. Right now Aramaic has the focus when I have time to study language (and Hebrew comes next), so I have no idea if I will ever get around to studying Akkadian. Still whenever I run into a bit of it, I really do find fascinating how much it has in common with Hebrew, Ugaritic, Ge'ez, etc... but I guess that's just how language families are. I see the same things when fiddling around between Avestan, Hindi, Greek and Latin. Confusedhrug: I very dearly wish I had time and money to do more than dabble. I did manage to find a cheap enough tutor for Aramaic (cheap is important in my situation), but he is very busy with his family life and I would like to learn more & faster.

I appreciate the humility in your message, but I hope you will forgive me for still perceiving the sunset tradition as a good and blessed thing. Starting the day at Midnight is now the practice of nearly the entire world, but many people assimilated into this newer way find they have multiplied the number of Scriptural passages they have trouble understanding. Just as you say, ending and beginning each day at sunset is a fundamental part of early Mesopotamian and Hebraic culture... beyond, even. Like myriads of other cultural features, this basic understanding is assumed by the literature writers of those peoples, and lacking those basic assumptions will cloud any passage when the meaning is dependent upon their presence. As believers in the holiness and relevance of Tanakh and Peshitta, much like believers in the other Bible versions the world over, we have a strong interest in reading our sacred texts as accurately as possible and having them taught likewise. Certainly by itself this "sunset rule" is certainly not going to be the unraveling of anyone's salvation. Nevertheless I hope we can agree that ignorance of fundamentals is a vulnerability when reading such writings, and that in such cases it is better to be knowledgeable.

In any case the tangent has perhaps been a little too well-explored... I simply didn't want to miss an opportunity to encourage. I agree that it's not exactly an "apostolic thing", but later perhaps I will explain what I meant there.

Wishing you well,

-Raymond
Reply
#74
Quote:I agree on some points you raise and vehemently disagree with others. Could Jesus have been Crucified on a Wednesday, maybe, but there are problems with this hypothesis. St Paul refers to the "Lord's" day, which was the first day of the week. The first day of the week representing new life and completion of the law, including the sabbath. Alan G77 ? Sat May 07, 2011 10:20 pm

Acts 20-7 and 1st Corinth 16 1-2

My apologies, it was not called the Lords day, but these two passages show comprehensively that Christians gathered on a Sunday, not a Saturday. Alan G77 ? Sun May 08, 2011 3:39 pm

The following are quoted from KJV:
Deuteronomy 19:15 "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Isaiah 8:2 "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah." Matthew 18:16 "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." 2 Corinthians 13:1 "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Jeremiah 42:5 "Then they said to Jeremiah, The LORD be a true and faithful witness between us, if we do not even according to all things for the which the LORD thy God shall send thee to us."

Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Luke 6:5 "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Here, the Messiah stated three times that He is the Lord of the Sabbath. He is the true witness; who will dispute that He lived without sin? And, having lived without sin, He could not bear false witness against Himself. Who is any man to presume to go against the words of the Creator and Redeemer?

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet," Here, the Apostle John is speaking and he was a Sabbath keeper.

From the foregoing, It follows that "the Lord's day" is Sabbath and not Sunday.

IF the Sabbath was abolished, why, in Isaiah's prophecy about the new earth, does it say we will worship from one new moon to another and one Sabbath to another? Isaiah 66:22,23 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD."

Mark 2:27 "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" The first chapter of the Gospel of John makes it clear that the Messiah was also the creator. He not only did the work of creation during the six days, but also "created" the Sabbath rest for Himself and for mankind. The Sabbath was made for man; it is a symbol of the union (creation and redemption) between the Messiah and mankind. My wife says, "Why would anyone want to give up that union? It's like a woman saying she wants to give up sex with the husband she claims to love. So many think of the Sabbath as a yoke around their neck instead of being a pleasure. It's like a marriage; it can be either a yoke or a pleasure."

Alan claims "Apostolic authority" for what he believes. The so-called Apostolic authority is the RCC and they readily admit their claim that "they" "had the authority" to change the Sabbath to Sunday. The history of the changes is published under the primature of Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, that is, The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome 1977. The book by Samuele Bacchiocchi is titled From Sabbath to Sunday. A web search for RCC doctrine and claimed authority confirms these claims. Inspection of every one of the "Apostolic authorities" quoted by Alan reveals their claims are founded on tradition, not Scripture. The Messiah and other Spripture say not to follow the traditions of men:

Matthew 15:3,6lp "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Mark 7:5-9,13 "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. ... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Following are two examples of how the RCC has substituted their traditions for the plain language of Scripture.
"Q. What is the Third Commandment?
"A. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day.
"Q. What are we commanded by this?
"A. To spend the Sunday in prayer and other religious Duties."
An abridgment of Christian doctrine: revised and enlarged by R.C. and published for the use of the L---n district. (Emphasis in original).

?From this same Catholic Church you have accepted your Sunday, and that Sunday, as the Lord?s day, she has handed down as a tradition; and the entire Protestant world has accepted it as tradition, for you have not an iota of Scripture to establish it. Therefore that which you have accepted as your rule of faith, in?adequate as it of course is, as well as your Sunday, you have accepted on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? D.B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, p. 179, 1892. (See the whole article at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.realtruth.org/articles/070831-005-wasw.html">http://www.realtruth.org/articles/070831-005-wasw.html</a><!-- m -->).

As to the corruption of the churches, note that the Messiah threw the money changers out of the temple:
John 2:14-16 "And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." Now compare 26 USC 501©(3) [religious organizations] with 26 USC 508©(1)(A) [churches]. These statutes may be found with a web search. My point? Religious organizations are houses of merchandise and are not churches.

My Testimony: Yeshua lived what I cannot live; Yeshua died what I should die; Yeshua arose from death on the third day as my assurance for eternal life. I accept. Amen.
Reply
#75
Daniel814 Wrote:
Quote:I agree on some points you raise and vehemently disagree with others. Could Jesus have been Crucified on a Wednesday, maybe, but there are problems with this hypothesis. St Paul refers to the "Lord's" day, which was the first day of the week. The first day of the week representing new life and completion of the law, including the sabbath. Alan G77 ? Sat May 07, 2011 10:20 pm

Acts 20-7 and 1st Corinth 16 1-2

My apologies, it was not called the Lords day, but these two passages show comprehensively that Christians gathered on a Sunday, not a Saturday. Alan G77 ? Sun May 08, 2011 3:39 pm

The following are quoted from KJV:
Deuteronomy 19:15 "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Isaiah 8:2 "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah." Matthew 18:16 "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." 2 Corinthians 13:1 "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Jeremiah 42:5 "Then they said to Jeremiah, The LORD be a true and faithful witness between us, if we do not even according to all things for the which the LORD thy God shall send thee to us."

Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Luke 6:5 "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." Here, the Messiah stated three times that He is the Lord of the Sabbath. He is the true witness; who will dispute that He lived without sin? And, having lived without sin, He could not bear false witness against Himself. Who is any man to presume to go against the words of the Creator and Redeemer?

Revelation 1:10 "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet," Here, the Apostle John is speaking and he was a Sabbath keeper.

From the foregoing, It follows that "the Lord's day" is Sabbath and not Sunday.

IF the Sabbath was abolished, why, in Isaiah's prophecy about the new earth, does it say we will worship from one new moon to another and one Sabbath to another? Isaiah 66:22,23 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD."

Mark 2:27 "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:" The first chapter of the Gospel of John makes it clear that the Messiah was also the creator. He not only did the work of creation during the six days, but also "created" the Sabbath rest for Himself and for mankind. The Sabbath was made for man; it is a symbol of the union (creation and redemption) between the Messiah and mankind. My wife says, "Why would anyone want to give up that union? It's like a woman saying she wants to give up sex with the husband she claims to love. So many think of the Sabbath as a yoke around their neck instead of being a pleasure. It's like a marriage; it can be either a yoke or a pleasure."

Alan claims "Apostolic authority" for what he believes. The so-called Apostolic authority is the RCC and they readily admit their claim that "they" "had the authority" to change the Sabbath to Sunday. The history of the changes is published under the primature of Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana, that is, The Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome 1977. The book by Samuele Bacchiocchi is titled From Sabbath to Sunday. A web search for RCC doctrine and claimed authority confirms these claims. Inspection of every one of the "Apostolic authorities" quoted by Alan reveals their claims are founded on tradition, not Scripture. The Messiah and other Spripture say not to follow the traditions of men:

Matthew 15:3,6lp "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Mark 7:5-9,13 "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. ... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Following are two examples of how the RCC has substituted their traditions for the plain language of Scripture.
"Q. What is the Third Commandment?
"A. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day.
"Q. What are we commanded by this?
"A. To spend the Sunday in prayer and other religious Duties."
An abridgment of Christian doctrine: revised and enlarged by R.C. and published for the use of the L---n district. (Emphasis in original).

?From this same Catholic Church you have accepted your Sunday, and that Sunday, as the Lord?s day, she has handed down as a tradition; and the entire Protestant world has accepted it as tradition, for you have not an iota of Scripture to establish it. Therefore that which you have accepted as your rule of faith, in?adequate as it of course is, as well as your Sunday, you have accepted on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? D.B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, p. 179, 1892. (See the whole article at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.realtruth.org/articles/070831-005-wasw.html">http://www.realtruth.org/articles/070831-005-wasw.html</a><!-- m -->).

As to the corruption of the churches, note that the Messiah threw the money changers out of the temple:
John 2:14-16 "And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." Now compare 26 USC 501©(3) [religious organizations] with 26 USC 508©(1)(A) [churches]. These statutes may be found with a web search. My point? Religious organizations are houses of merchandise and are not churches.

My Testimony: Yeshua lived what I cannot live; Yeshua died what I should die; Yeshua arose from death on the third day as my assurance for eternal life. I accept. Amen.

I am currently studying for an economics exam and haven't the time, right now, to debunk this post. But rest assured come this weekend I will debunk it as there are many many baseless assumptions and fallacies tied to it. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)