Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"MarYah deception" ???
It shouldn't, Jeremy... "The Miltha/Word is God" and the Miltha/Word became flesh (a human being), and dwelt among us...The Miltha/Word as to His Divinity is named YAHWEY, as to His Humanity, He is named YAHSHUA... YAH/Man. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

By the way I am really loving your gift to me...Praise YAH.

Brother Paul is there anything planned for the rest of the New Testament you have worked on, or perhaps the audio you had mentioned doing before?

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
Jerry Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:Shlama akhi Jerry,

while i understand your reason entirely for doing your own translations, and respect it, as well as your hesitation linguistically on the Marya/MarYa side, i would like to see why you don't accept the possibility that MARYA could really just be the compound MAR+YAH, as the language would indeed allow for such a reading. curious to know your thoughts on this.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Burning One,

Though I referred to it somewhat disparagingly before, I haven't ruled out the possibility of a compound word. If MAR = Lord, and YAH = God, then what you have, IMO, is "Lord-God". FWIW, I would want to make it "the-Lord-God", and in at least two instances (Matthew), "a-Lord-God"; in other words, an emphatic.

I remain a bit skeptical on the compound word, but I can't argue against its contextual fit.


Shlama akhi Jerry,


thank you for your thoughts. i'm sold by now on the idea of it representing MAR+YAH; too much evidence to discount for me. i held out as long as i could <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> but i finally caved to the evidence!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:It shouldn't, Jeremy... "The Miltha/Word is God" and the Miltha/Word became flesh (a human being), and dwelt among us...The Miltha/Word as to His Divinity is named YAHWEY, as to His Humanity, He is named YAHSHUA... YAH/Man. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

By the way I am really loving your gift to me...Praise YAH.

Brother Paul is there anything planned for the rest of the New Testament you have worked on, or perhaps the audio you had mentioned doing before?

Blessings,
Chuck


Shlama akhi Chuck,


yes, there is ample evidence otherwise, but seeing MarYa as such related to Yeshu'a, well, that pretty much throws out any possibility of denying His identity in relation to Deity. and i'm glad you're enjoying the gift! praise YAH indeed!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
Jerry Wrote:Paul, "captive" is a noun, so is "lord". In grammatical parlance, both "captive" and "lord" are substantive nouns, both are adjective nouns.

I am not comparing verb to noun; I am comparing noun to noun, substantive noun to substantive noun, adjective noun to adjective noun. I am comparing an S-B-A root to a M-R-A root. I am comparing the only root in the entire Peshittal NT (S-B-A) that matches the two Yod emphatics of (M-R-A); not to mention, by deduction, its singular construct as well.

(Sha-Be`) (Mau-Re`) singular construct
(ShaB-Yau`) (MauR-Yau`) singular emphatic
(Sh-Ba-Yau`) (Mau-Ra-Yau`) plural emphatic

From what I've seen so far, those are the only two nouns in the Peshitta NT that share that same type of paradigm. Even though you choose to discount it as meaningless, in my opinion, it has some relevance.

There are other nouns, real nouns (not like the verbal substantive Sh-B-A) with the irregular suffix of -ayye for the plural. Like "cities", "fields" and "year". Note that the singular emphatic for these nouns does not have an added Yodh.

[Image: plural-ayye.jpg]
(courtesy, Classical Syriac: a basic grammar with a chrestomathy by T. Muraoka)

Mar-ayye (plural for "lords") isn't at all unique. It's just another one of these irregular forms in the plural.

+Shamasha
Reply
Paul Younan Wrote:I read the position in certain posts (perhaps my own, I don't remember) that, in effect, those who do not believe in the Divinity of the Messiah aren't saved. While it's not really the type of debate I care to have on this forum, nevertheless it is an established doctrine of orthodoxy.

In any case, one can believe in the Divine Nature of the Messiah, without subscribing to the MarYah theory. I suppose that is more a matter of linguistic debate, despite its potential theological implications.
Just to back this up, there are about 30 million oneness pentecostals (but not necessarily me) that believe this to be a salvation issue (that Jesus is Yahweh), and very most of them never even heard of the peshitta. They find it very clearly expressed everywhere in the bible, both OT and NT.

Paul and Jerry, i really appreciate the way you two debate this issue. i would love to see both of you write an essay on this topic where no argument would fall short. i admit i mostly agree with Paul, but i can't help but think he might be pushed to defend his understanding beause of his own tradition (the same might be true for Jerry though).
Reply
Shlama Akhan Andrej.

But I thought the "Nestorian" position was against the idea that Jesus is YHWH? At least according to our adversaries.

The very article that started this thread insinuated that those of us who support this understanding are doing so because of a theological bias. Read it and see for yourself.

Of course nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, it can be argued that my position on the MarYah understanding more closely supports the Christology of the Jacobites, rather than what the world mistakenly refers to as the Nestorians, my own tradition.

When it comes to the language itself I make a very strong effort to leave behind my own bias and accept the evidence for what it is. And what it is is reflected by the fourth-century words of St. Ephraem.

When articles like that one butcher the understanding of Aramaic grammar, I can't sit idly by and allow it to happen. It's totally unsupported by the primary texts, and by tradition. Not to mention the modern spoken tongue.

Something had to be said. Tradition or not.
Reply
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhan Andrej.

But I thought the "Nestorian" position was against the idea that Jesus is YHWH? At least according to our adversaries.

The very article that started this thread insinuated that those of us who support this understanding are doing so because of a theological bias. Read it and see for yourself.

Of course nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, it can be argued that my position on the MarYah understanding more closely supports the Christology of the Jacobites, rather than what the world mistakenly refers to as the Nestorians, my own tradition.

When it comes to the language itself I make a very strong effort to leave behind my own bias and accept the evidence for what it is. And what it is is reflected by the fourth-century words of St. Ephraem.

When articles like that one butcher the understanding of Aramaic grammar, I can't sit idly by and allow it to happen. It's totally unsupported by the primary texts, and by tradition. Not to mention the modern spoken tongue.

Something had to be said. Tradition or not.
Hello Paul, i don't really follow all the way. i do not completely agree with oneness pentecostal theology, but the way i see it, nestorians and OP agree in that Christ has more than one nature. OP, nestorians and i would disagree, however, on how to define those natures, and how to define the "seperations" between those natures. i am positive, though, in stating that the very most OP would identify Jesus as YHWH. It's pretty much what defines them. OP would simply identify Christ's divine nature as YHWH.

You seem to say people identify you as nestorian, but people also say nestorians are against the idea that Jesus is YHWH, which is what you say? (???)

i did not mean to accuse or insult you, it is just that i do not know you well enough to tell whether you are willing and able to submit your traditions to truth or not, as it seems you submit yourself (and in turn your research) to ACOE traditions. In theology, i absolutely agree with you on this MarYah issue, which does not mean you (or i) are correct, though.
Reply
Andrej, don't the OPs teach that Jesus IS The Father...that there is no differance or distinction there? If you know what their doctrine is.

Yahshua is YAHWEH...because it is GOD's WORD, whom THE FATHER always expresses Himself through..His WORD/LOGOS/MILTHA...is the expression of GOD's MIND, who is Eternal Mind...When THE WORD hears what The Father says (thinks), then The Word of God, speaks it. It works that way with us as well, who are created in God's image and likeness...but GOD is FAR GREATER than us of course.

Every time there is interaction between God and mankind...it is The Word of GOD, who is dealing with mankind. And the Word of GOD, became a human being, in the Person of Jesus, The Messiah. He and His Father are ONE...but not the same Person...of the same substance, but not the same identity...one is Father and the other is Son, who proceds from the bosom of The Father.

Peace to you.
Reply
I am a Oneness Pentecostal and I'd like to state that we do teach a distinction between the Father and Son. The Father, in Oneness theology, refers to God's existence beyond the incarnation as an unlimited Spirit. The Son, refers to God's existence as a genuine Man, namely Jesus Christ (or Yeshua Maschiyach). "Jesus Only" is not an accurate description of what we believe, because this assumes that God existed nowhere else except in Christ (which is very flawed). Unlike the Nestorians, we do not teach teach that the two natures of Christ (unfallen human and divine) are separate, but united. Many Oneness Pentecostals (like UPC theologian David K. Bernard) teach a rather Nestorian sounding view of Christ (describing the distinction between the Father and Son as a distinction between the divine and human natures of Christ. Modalism differs from the Oneness doctrine in the sense that we acknowledge the distinctions (or some of us do LOL), while the Modalists did not.

Trinitarians understand the Father, Son and Spirit to be separate Persons in the Godhead, which is sorely misdefined by this theology. The Godhead refers to God's attributes, not to a container of the Trinity. The only thing that really separates the Trinity doctrine from polytheism is the fact that it says that these three Persons are of one essence (or are in the one Godhead). This doctrine teaches that God has always been a plural entity, yet one God, while we understand God to be a singular entity and to be one God.
Reply
Paul Younan Wrote:
distazo Wrote:Maryah, while written as you said without the Heh, means only "Mar-Yah." Your point about the Heh being missing is irrelevant, have you seen how Zechariah, Hezekiah (Matthew 1:10), and other names containing the Sacred Name are spelled in Aramaic? You guessed it - without the Heh. That's because Aramaic has a preference to spell words as they are pronounced phonetically. It is different from Hebrew in the spelling of these names at times, depending on the phonetics.

MRYA -> Lord Yah, always. Never used to mean anything else, period.

+Shamasha

<!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: --> Also the Short Form of the Divine Name does not have the Heh either just the same two letters in MarYa or ZecharYa and HezekYa - i.e. - Yodh-Aleph (English: YAH)! And for further confirmation see also "HalleluYa" in the Book of Revelation (chapter 19:1, 3, 4, and 6) in the Western PeshittO.
Reply
I became interested as a Plymouth Brother in the Jehovah/LORD problem and started to learn Hebrew some years ago re. I understood that YHWH was given various incorrect pointings in the Hebrew so that the reader read for example Adonai (the Lord) instead of YHWH. Eventually I formed the opinion that the pointings were incorrect so that as in the Hallelujah Scriptures English I can now read YHWH as in YHWH is my shepherd. But I wanted further clarity when coming to the new testament. The fact that 7,000 references to Marya in the old testament were an alteration from YHWH in the Aramaic old testament makes no difference.

Now coming to the new testament I am not happy with the Aramaic retention of the altered name. I understand that some are saying Mar Yah is the meaning of marya but this is beside the point.

Here is an example of the further confusion that the above makes. Acts 15:17 So that the remainder of mankind and all the Gentiles will seek YHWH, those who my name is called over them, said Master YHWH who made all things. Here Roth has translated the same original Aramaic in two ways. As the Aramaic is not a quote of the original, we now have confusion multiplied. Amos 9:11-12. Verse 12 ends and all the gentiles on whom My Name is called, declares YHWH who does this.

My conclusion must be that while Roth has tried to unravel many big questions he has failed to answer the question "Does the original take YHWH intact into the new testament". Of course the KJ version implies YHWH where it says "As was spoken by the prophet of the Lord" in Matthew etc. My HS bible says Paul preached that Yeshua was the Ben of YHWH. Acts 9:20. But does this have any manuscript authority? Is not Son of God correct, rather than Son of YHWH?

<!-- e --><a href="mailto:aldred.emmans@gmail.com">aldred.emmans@gmail.com</a><!-- e -->
Reply
Quote:Acts 9:20. But does this have any manuscript authority? Is not Son of God correct, rather than Son of YHWH?

I haven't seen any manuscript with that reading, and I believe that the correct translation is "Son of God" there. I'm not sure there is a verse which says "Son of MarYa" in the Peshitta text. Does anyone know of one?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
But if you point out this simple "fact of life" to the HS people you draw a blank. Aldred
Reply
You will find that in translations, there will always be some interpreting going on, though the hope is, that the interpreting is not contrary to what is actually written in the source text, or goes against the message it conveys.

The HS translation came about over a dispute over the publisher of "The Scriptures" translation, where the HS folks didn't like some of the changes made in the latest edition, they wanted to have control over its text and its distribution, and when they couldn't get it, they made their own version instead. It is basically the same, with some of their choices of renderings.

.
Reply
I can't stand it when people feel the need to tweak the Bible until it fits their beliefs. "Son of God" versus "Son of YHWH" shouldn't be something people feel the need to change.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)