Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"MarYah deception" ???
#46
For those who think that (mor-yo`) is the unique and distinct personal name for YHWH, how do you reconcile that with Matthew 22:43-45; where it is used three times, but only once in reference to YHWH?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordance.php?adr=2:12407&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordanc ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

And how do you reconcile the fact that Mark 12:37 and Luke 20:44 both use (mory) "my-lord" in the same instance where Matthew used (mor-yo`) in Matthew 22:45? In other words, if (mor-yo`) is so unique, why is it used interchangeably with (mory)?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordance.php?adr=2:12405&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordanc ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%
Reply
#47
justalex Wrote:
whathell Wrote:
justalex Wrote:Actually yes it was Philip however the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) lists both mry and mry` as having the definition of "master" not YHWH or Lord Yah and yes Aaron it (mry`) is found there also.

John 1:1-11, commonly found in the Greek source text, with the story of the woman taken in adultery has never been in the original Aramaic Peshitta.

So, how could CAL, concerning the original Aramaic Peshitta, reference John 8:11 for a word "lord/master"?

justalex Wrote:Also of note, in Maaseh Shlichiym 9:27 Shaul says he has seen, "l`marya" on the road to Damascus however that would contradict Yahuchanan/"John" Aleph 4:12 that "no man has seen YHWH at any time".

More completely, straight from the interlinear Peshitta text, it is written:

John 1:18 - God, not has seen man ever, the Only-Begotten God, He who is in the bosom of His Father, He has declared Him

Also, please consider...

John 14:8 - Said to him Peleepos, our Lord, show us the Father and it will satisfy us...
said to him Yeshua, all this time I am with you, and you do not know me Peleepa? Whoever sees me sees the father, and how do say you "show us the father?"

justalex Wrote:And also, isn't that "l'mryh" in Maaseh Shlichiym/Acts 16:16 and "mryh" in Maaseh Shlichiym/Acts 16:19 and both times it is speaking of the young girls "human" masters. This is actually the first time I have seen the entire acronym "mryh" used at all, I don't know if if it's used anywhere else.

Has anyone else seen this?

Neither of the words mryh(lords) or lmryh(masters) would be a place holder for YHVH/YHWH. The Peshitta seems to have distinctively set mrya only for YHVH/YHWH throughout it's text from it's very origin. Which btw positively id's the early disciples knowledge of Y'shua being both man and YHVH/YHWH (John 1:1,14).


A "placeholder"? A "placeholder" for the name of YHWH. Well why not just stick with "lord" and "god" since you're using "placeholders" anyway. You don't need a foreign language to have "placeholders". I wonder why YHWH gave us HIS NAME, HIS INEFFABLE NAME, if HE wanted us to use
"placeholders"? However, if a "placeholder" is ok for you, then so be it unto you.

Stay in peace. justalex

justalex Wrote:A "placeholder"? A "placeholder" for the name of YHWH. Well why not just stick with "lord" and "god" since you're using "placeholders" anyway.

There're translations which do just that sort of thing. For example, KJV.

justalex Wrote:You don't need a foreign language to have "placeholders".

You do if the source language in which the place holder text exist is foreign to your native tongue

justalex Wrote:I wonder why YHWH gave us HIS NAME, HIS INEFFABLE NAME, if HE wanted us to use
"placeholders"?

I think that would be a good question to put to those who actually scribed the ancient Aramaic Peshitta text.

justalex Wrote:However, if a "placeholder" is ok for you, then so be it unto you.

Finally, we arrive at the true purpose of your Strawman argument.

Did I ever say it was "OK" or did I merely point-out the "FACT?"

Furthermore, If the word "placeholder" is the only thing you took from my post, it is obvious that you read it looking for fault instead of dealing with information or to answer the question (of note is that you didn't even mention any of the passages). If you don't have an answer then what really was the reason to quote any of it at all?
Peace in knowing Y'shu(Yeshu)/Jesus
Reply
#48
Jerry Wrote:For those who think that (mor-yo`) is the unique and distinct personal name for YHWH, how do you reconcile that with Matthew 22:43-45; where it is used three times, but only once in reference to YHWH?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordance.php?adr=2:12407&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordanc ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

And how do you reconcile the fact that Mark 12:37 and Luke 20:44 both use (mory) "my-lord" in the same instance where Matthew used (mor-yo`) in Matthew 22:45? In other words, if (mor-yo`) is so unique, why is it used interchangeably with (mory)?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordance.php?adr=2:12405&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/concordanc ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

Jerry Wrote:For those who think that (mor-yo`) is the unique and distinct personal name for YHWH, how do you reconcile that with Matthew 22:43-45; where it is used three times, but only once in reference to YHWH?

Greetings Jerry,

Just wanted to clear-up a little detail and ask you a question in the end.

1. It was "marya" (Eastern Aramaic Peshitta)

2. In Mat 22:43-45 there is mention of four words which mean "lord/master"

3. In Mat 22:43-45 "marya" referenced three times and lmar once

I see nothing here to reconcile ...all that has been stated is that "when"(1) the word "marya" is used in this scripture source, it is noted to reference only YHWH and not creatures (created beings).

1. That is to not to say there should not be more occurances where there is lack of this detail.

This scripture passage is very important because it brings-up the very subject of what the name "marya" represents.

Mat 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

And it seems that even to this day we hear the same echo of this type of answer (son of man, son of Mary ...etc).

In response to this Y'shua questioned:

Mat 22:43. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him LORD(marya), saying,
44. The LORD(marya) said unto my Lord(lmar), Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

And even further questioned:

Mat 22:45. If David then call him LORD(marya), how is he his son?

This is my question to you as well ...can you answer this please?
Peace in knowing Y'shu(Yeshu)/Jesus
Reply
#49
Quote:This is my question to you as well ...can you answer this please?
My post was not in regard to the theology of the verse, but to the claim by some that the word (mor-yo`) itself is the ineffable name for YHWH. There is plenty to reconcile between that claim and the verses I referenced.
Reply
#50
whathell,

LOL. Was your entire summaraization or should I expect more in the future? Or do you just wish to argue for arguments sake? If YOU "whathell" have decided to call YHWH, (the name HE called HIMSELF in several different places in the Hebrew text; which came before the Peshitta text correct?); again if you have decided to call HIM "bob", jimmy" or "marya" your "placeholder" or any OTHER "placeholder", that is completely up to YOU and in no way affects my derech and halachot in HIM. I don't think I can be any more clear on that.

I will continue to call HIM what HE called HIMSELF in Yesha`yahu (Isaiah to the none Ibriyt readers/speakers) 42:8 and Shemot 6:3 and various other places throughout the Ibriyt texts and let man follow man. I'd rather be led by HIS RUACH as Shaul said in Romans 8:14-17. (By the by... Romans 8:17 must really be a difficult verse since it makes us "co-heirs" with MASHIACH, whom you claim is YHWH. Are we now "co-heirs" with The CREATOR HIMSELF?) I think not, however, what do I know, I'm just a simple "joe" trying to be right with YHWH.

Find YOUR peace, I have mine, justalex
Reply
#51
Shlama Dave,

i've responded to your thoughts below.

gbausc Wrote:Shlama Jeremy,

?And the Egyptians will I give into the hands of Adonim qasheh? (cruel lords) ; ?Marye? pronounced ?Maryay? is plural also (lords). Are you suggesting that YHWH will deliver the Egyptians unto YHWH? Is YHWH the cruel Master and the fierce King spoken of? If so, Adonim refers to YHWH and Maryay (plural) translates the plural Adonim with the most appropriate Aramaic word in the plural form, with identical meaning. If not, (and I cannot believe this does refer to YHWH), Maryay (plural) translates the plural Adonim with the most appropriate Aramaic word in the plural form with identical meaning. In either case, Maryay is not Marya. Maryay is a plural title, as is Adonim.

no, i'm not suggesting Marye should be YHWH. the whole point was in showing the opposite - but you're confusing the matter, i think. i brought this up with relation to the other passage showing that YHWH refers to HIMSELF as Adonim, so that it CAN be used singularly. that was the point, nothing more. since it CAN be used in a singular sense, i was suggesting that the AN"K's usage of the "spelling" of MARYA / MARYE' could be evidence that it should have been understood singularly, in the Aramaic, as well. of course we can't totally know, but it is interesting that the LXX chose to render it singular, instead of plural.


gbausc Wrote:Marya is The Name of God.

seriously? i thought you were advocating that Marya means Lord-Yah? YHWH is His Name, however that should be pronounced, but Marya is not His Name, but instead, perhaps like Adon YHWH from the Hebrew, but let's be clear that it is not His Name, which is YHWH.

gbausc Wrote:Joshua 3:11 does present a case where the Massoretic Hebrew has ?Adon? and The Peshitta has Marya, but is there any doubt that ?The Lord of all the earth? is YHWH?

no doubt about that, thankfully. again, i was only showing that the AN"K does not appear to be as stringent in translating as it could be.

gbausc Wrote:You have yet to show one place where Marya (not plural Maryay) refers to anyone but YHWH.

actually, to be fair, i've only yet to show thus to your satisfaction, as the above instance from Isaiah could be argued. and perhaps you are right -- i'm not against Marya = YHWH uncontestedly, to be clear. i just want to make sure from all points that it HAS to always mean that and that alone. i've personally yet to see evidence which is to my complete satisfaction. but we're all still learning, so no hard feelings, i hope!

gbausc Wrote:It was not my object to assert the Peshitta reading in Psalms 114:7 necessarily reflects the original to be YHWH, only that the Hebrew manuscript from which the Peshitta was translated may have had YHWH at that place; we cannot know; we can only guess. It also was not my purpose to prove that YHWH always translates to Marya, only that Marya always translates YHWH or identifies YHWH.

ah, okay, thanks for the clarification of your intent. so in effect, using Psalms as evidence for or against it would be fruitless.

gbausc Wrote:It would a mistake to think that since ?Adon? was translated with ?Marya? (if indeed it was) in a few places, and also translated as ?Mara?, and that since YHWH is also translated as Marya and as Mara in a few places, that Mara and Marya are the same, even as it would be a mistake to think ?Adon? and YHWH have the same meaning, since both are apparently translated with ?Marya? in any number of cases. Even if YHWH was translated as Mara in a few places, which cannot be proved, the fact remains that wherever we find ?Marya? in the Peshitta OT, it identifies The Deity -YHWH.

the point of my referencing was to show that again, the AN"K was not totally consistent in rendering the Hebrew completely accurately, and that should be taken into consideration. for some reason it chose to not render the Name in those instances. i'm not advocating that any one is the exact same meaning (and definitely not Adon and YHWH), just throwing out some evidence that should be considered in the whole matter, because i think people are really quick to be definitive in this topic one way or the other, but there are questions that still remain and need to be inspected.

gbausc Wrote:We do know that the Massoretes altered ?YHWH? in at least 134 places to ?Adonai? in the TaNaK. They documented this in the Massorahs found in Hebrew mss, and were compiled by David Ginsburg.
I have listed all the references at the end of my interlinear translation of the Peshitta Psalms & Proverbs. Bullinger's Companion Bible also has these in the appendix.

yes, the tikkuney that i referred to are the emendations you speak of. i believe you can find them online as well.

gbausc Wrote:The bottom line is that Marya always identifies YHWH, never any other.
Considering that Marya occurs over 6,600 times in the Peshitta Tanak, that has to count for something.

well, i'm not entirely sure, obviously, that it is never any other. but i'm always open to correction and since i've been wrong most of my life, i wouldn't be surprised, but i need conclusive evidence that i've yet to really see.

gbausc Wrote:Taybutha b'Shemah d'Marya Yeshua,

Dave

blessings!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#52
Jerry Wrote:
Quote:This is my question to you as well ...can you answer this please?
My post was not in regard to the theology of the verse, but to the claim by some that the word (mor-yo`) itself is the ineffable name for YHWH. There is plenty to reconcile between that claim and the verses I referenced.

Jerry Wrote:My post was not in regard to the theology of the verse, but to the claim by some that the word (mor-yo`) itself is the ineffable name for YHWH.

I understood this, however, it is mines. For if one can correctly understand the scripture context then words in question, such as this one, we can easily see the resolution when merged with other data. So, are you going to answer?

Jerry Wrote:There is plenty to reconcile between that claim and the verses I referenced.

Well, I don't see it based on what I've explain to you previously.
Peace in knowing Y'shu(Yeshu)/Jesus
Reply
#53
Quote:I understood this, however, it is mines. For if one can correctly understand the scripture context then words in question, such as this one, we can easily see the resolution when merged with other data. So, are you going to answer?
You have presupposed your own understanding, so not a need for me to answer.
Reply
#54
Shlama Jeremy,

You wrote:
Quote:YHWH is His Name, however that should be pronounced, but Marya is not His Name, but instead, perhaps like Adon YHWH from the Hebrew, but let's be clear that it is not His Name, which is YHWH.

"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH. YHWH is not Hebrew, it is the English transliteration of the Hebrew consonants only. It is therefore an English representation of the Hebrew Name.
"Marya" at least includes the correct Aramaic vowel transliteration with the consonants, in English, and is therefore a distinct representation of the Hebrew Name hwhy, as Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary describes it, which I here reproduce using Estrangela characters instead of Serto:
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm[/font] (pronounced ?Marey? with vowels) abs. and constr. , emph. [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm [/font](read ?Mara? with vowels) and [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font](read ?Marya? with vowels)
The latter form is used only of THE LORD God, and in the Peshitta Version of The O.T. represents the Tetragrammaton.
Paul Younan has given Orham's Dictionary definition, and Jennings has the same definition as Smith's.

You are simply wrong, Jeremy, when you assert "Maryay" the plural form, used in Acts 16 and elsewhere of humans, to be "Marya".

That is ignorance, as any Peshitta edition with Estrangela or Serto script will show. They have Syame marks (two horizontally aligned dots) placed over all plural nouns and adjectives. The vowels are also different in the plural form.
"Marya" is never used to identify anyone but hwhy.


Blessings to you,

Dave
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
#55
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Jeremy,

You wrote:
Quote:YHWH is His Name, however that should be pronounced, but Marya is not His Name, but instead, perhaps like Adon YHWH from the Hebrew, but let's be clear that it is not His Name, which is YHWH.

"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH. YHWH is not Hebrew, it is the English transliteration of the Hebrew consonants only. It is therefore an English representation of the Hebrew Name.

maybe you don't understand what i was saying: Marya is not the Name given by YHWH. transliteration aside, if you think otherwise, i don't know what to say. hopefully that is not what you meant, because at best, if Marya is intended to be read as you are promoting, then it means Master Yah, not YHWH exclusively. what it would be like is akin to you being named Sir David / MarDavid, right? i know a person actually named Sir, but YHWH's Name is not MarYa in the sense as that being what He gave to the people, which was the transliterated equivalent of YHWH. i hope that clarifies the issue.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" at least includes the correct Aramaic vowel transliteration with the consonants, in English, and is therefore a distinct representation of the Hebrew Name hwhy, as Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary describes it, which I here reproduce using Estrangela characters instead of Serto:
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm[/font] (pronounced ?Marey? with vowels) abs. and constr. , emph. [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rm [/font](read ?Mara? with vowels) and [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font](read ?Marya? with vowels)

i appreciate your detailed response, but i've explained what i meant above. Marya is, at best, an abbrievated form of YHWH, or else it would be MarYahweh in the full, right?

gbausc Wrote:The latter form is used only of THE LORD God, and in the Peshitta Version of The O.T. represents the Tetragrammaton.
Paul Younan has given Orham's Dictionary definition, and Jennings has the same definition as Smith's.

once i find incontrovertable evidence to that, i will happily acquiesce to the idea. as for now, i'm open to wondering.

gbausc Wrote:You are simply wrong, Jeremy, when you assert "Maryay" the plural form, used in Acts 16 and elsewhere of humans, to be "Marya".

i would retrack your statement here, David, as i've never suggested that Maryay in Acts 16 is Marya. i'm not sure where you got this, but you're simply wrong. i don't mind friendly disagreements and discussion over the meaning of a word, as it serves to sharpen us, but i didn't ever assert what you've suggested, so please don't wrongfully accuse me of such. maybe you're thinking of someone else?

gbausc Wrote:That is ignorance, as any Peshitta edition with Estrangela or Serto script will show. They have Syame marks (two horizontally aligned dots) placed over all plural nouns and adjectives. The vowels are also different in the plural form.

again, i don't know why you're stating this, as i've not suggested otherwise. i understand the purpose of syame marks, and even though they could be argued in certain places, i've never suggested anything about Acts 16, so be sure your facts are correct before "correcting" someone, please.

gbausc Wrote:"Marya" is never used to identify anyone but hwhy.

well, the verdict is still out for me, but i'm always open to new evidence to the contrary.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#56
Lately, I've glanced at a couple of websites to see how the dead sea scrolls rendered YHWH. Kind of interesting actually. Apparently, they used a more ancient form of "Middle Hebrew" script for YHWH, instead of the "Late Hebrew" script of the scrolls themselves.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.eliyah.com/yhwhdss.html">http://www.eliyah.com/yhwhdss.html</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_psalm138.html">http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/31_psalm138.html</a><!-- m -->

On a side note, the Masoretic text contains a significant number of inconsistencies in the use of matres lectionis. I think the dead sea scrolls might go a long way in correcting those inconsistencies. Masoretic (`e:lo:hiym) for example, is rendered as (`e:low:hiym) in the DSS.
Reply
#57
You said Jerry two interesting things...

That you don't mind friendly disagreements and that the jury was still out for you...


With some people there is no such thing as a "friendly" disagreement... they will be right and you wrong no matter what the evidence says to the contrary... also, if the jury is "out" for you, that means in their mind you are automatically wrong because you won't accept what "they" say to be the truth...

justalex
Reply
#58
I asked this question before and really got no answer so I'll just ask it again...

Why is it in the scriptures you do not find "Jesus" saying He is The FATHER but quite the opposite. He prays to His FATHER, He asks His FATHER to make the discples "one", He tells His FATHER "into your hands I commit my spirit, He even tells His disciples that They would not ask Him for anything but that they would ask The FATHER in His (Jesus') name etc... I'm sure if I could take the time to type all of the passages with similar sayings from "JESUS" Himself.

So if He and His Father are one and the same (marya/maryah) the scriptures just do not bear out the same thing. Does anyone have an explanation of why "Jesus" would be prayihng to Himself or committing His spirit into His own hands?

justalex
Reply
#59
Rafa Wrote:
Quote:So if He and His Father are one and the same (marya/maryah) the scriptures just do not bear out the same thing. Does anyone have an explanation of why "Jesus" would be prayihng to Himself or committing His spirit into His own hands?

The ACOE teaches that a certain separation exists between His humanity and His Divinity (ie: the ACOE holds a strictly Diophysite Christology) and also a certain degree of separation between the Divinity of the Word and that of the Father even though they are of the same essence (ie: no Arian or Sabellian heresy has ever been taught by the ACOE). He is not praying to himself as the Divine Qnuma of the Word, he is praying to his Father the first Divine Qnuma from which he was begotten from and was eternally with from the beginning, just as plain scripture says. Therefore there is no contradiction. If anybody from the ACOE wishes to correct me on anything please do.


Shlama Ahki Rafa,

Thank you for this information. It seems that "Alex" has issues accepting what the scriptures bear forth.

Shlama wBurkate
Reply
#60
Rafa Wrote:
Quote:So if He and His Father are one and the same (marya/maryah) the scriptures just do not bear out the same thing. Does anyone have an explanation of why "Jesus" would be prayihng to Himself or committing His spirit into His own hands?

The ACOE teaches that a certain separation exists between His humanity and His Divinity (ie: the ACOE holds a strictly Diophysite Christology) and also a certain degree of separation between the Divinity of the Word and that of the Father even though they are of the same essence (ie: no Arian or Sabellian heresy has ever been taught by the ACOE). He is not praying to himself as the Divine Qnuma of the Word, he is praying to his Father the first Divine Qnuma from which he was begotten from and was eternally with from the beginning, just as plain scripture says. Therefore there is no contradiction. If anybody from the ACOE wishes to correct me on anything please do.


Quote: gbausc wrote:The latter form is used only of THE LORD God, and in the Peshitta Version of The O.T. represents the Tetragrammaton.
Paul Younan has given Orham's Dictionary definition, and Jennings has the same definition as Smith's.



once i find incontrovertable evidence to that, i will happily acquiesce to the idea. as for now, i'm open to wondering.

I agree with Jeremy. I believe MarYah is an abbreviation, but the actual Tetragrammaton ? That's new to me Dave, please, I too am interested in this. Show us the proof for this claim Akhi.


Rafa,

Thank you for your response...

"The ACOE teaches"? Unfortunately I don't go by what someone happens to teach but what the scriptures themselves say. That particular teaching comes from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and was also seen as the same as Nestorianism.

So your answer is what someone teaches. Are there any scriptures where "Jesus" says such is the case? I think that was part of my original question if it was not, then I mistakenly omitted it. However the scriptures say in Hebrews that ""Jesus" was made a man for the suffering of death." It makes no mention of His divinity.

In fact, if he was indeed still divine, how did he not know the time of His own return?

justalex
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)