Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 21:57:52 GMT -5
I guess I was wrong. You do intend to disagree with everything I write and continue to misrepresent (or just not bother reading and comprehending) my views on a subject even if you unwittingly agree! I suggest starting at the top of this thread and reading it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom, starting with the top. Just to help you out, you will discover in this thread that my repeated view, first challenged by Cherie, is that the Pesh_tta was translated from Greek to Syriac and then to English, rendering the Pesh_tta in English today rather valueless because of the multiple renderings and possibilities of error. Now if you can't see that or don't understand that, please ask, I would be happy to explain it and go over it, line by line. As far as your last post goes, you are not quoting my words or my view. Please be more careful when attributing quotes and views to me. Now let's have some genuine discourse if it is at all possible. Okay - let's have some genuine discourse - and please read more carefully what I have written already. At this point, I don't have to read any reference you give me concerning who most scholars believe penned the NT. I said exactly what I meant (and I meant nothing more than what I said), I made not a word of it up, and I have adequate reference in my curriculum vitae to back it up. I'm reading very carefully. You seem to be stating that scholars have never claimed that some NT epistles written by the apostle Paul. And that other writers of the NT were not disciples? At least that is the way I read your sentence. Or do you really mean "original 12 disciples/apostles"?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 3, 2013 22:38:06 GMT -5
Okay - let's have some genuine discourse - and please read more carefully what I have written already. At this point, I don't have to read any reference you give me concerning who most scholars believe penned the NT. I said exactly what I meant (and I meant nothing more than what I said), I made not a word of it up, and I have adequate reference in my curriculum vitae to back it up. I'm reading very carefully. You seem to be stating that scholars have never claimed that some NT epistles written by the apostle Paul. And that other writers of the NT were not disciples? At least that is the way I read your sentence. Or do you really mean "original 12 disciples/apostles"? I knew you'd ask -- but I needed to make sure you got that much of it straight. It may seem that way to you, but no, I did not say that scholars have never claimed that none of the epistles can be attributed to Paul. I did say that MOST scholars do claim that some NT epistles were written by "Paul". I did not say that MOST scholars claim that some NT epistles were written by the "apostle" Paul. And I did insinuate that MOST scholar do not believe that all writings attributed to Paul were really written by him -- no alternate author named. I did not say that NO scholar has ever referred to Paul as an apostle -- some do. Yes, I did think of the "apostle" Paul. The problem with Paul is that neither Jesus nor any of the 12 apostles recognized him as an apostle. Paul gave that title to himself. So MOST scholars recognize that the title is less certain for Paul than it is for the 12. Also, MOST scholars also agree that not everything attributed to Paul in the NT was ever written by Paul -- claiming that some of it is written in a different dialect and some of it is out of sync with what they believe he did write. I think most scholars would agree that all of the NT was written by disciples -- at least of someone. Anyone who is that involved with fine-tuning the original documents is going to be careful about applying the word "disciple" to any of the writers. Paul even referred to some of the "disciples" as agents of the Devil. I would suggest that what many, perhaps most, people western Christian theologists refer to as "disciples" could more precisely be considered "disciples of Paul" -- very possibly some of the eastern church scholars as well.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 5, 2013 12:14:00 GMT -5
For the record, my husband's research does not agree with the translation train CD posted above for the English translation of the Aramaic Pesh--tta Bible.
He doesnt have time right now to go into the reasons.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 5, 2013 12:50:58 GMT -5
I believe that I did start at the top of this thread and read it s-l-o-w-l-y from top to bottom.
If I misinterpreted what you stated I apologize, however, this was your statement.
Clearday
Post by Clearday on 28 Sep 2013 at 17:37
If I understand it correctly, the Pesh-itta NT was a translation from the Greek back to Syriac/Aramaic. The value of it seems like it would be a bit dubious since it is a translation of a translation and translated again into English. The only interesting aspect I see in it is that Syriac was probably very close to what was spoken by the Galileans. However, it is not the original scriptures, but the NT went from Aramaic to Greek then back to Aramaic from the Greek. Some things are bound to get "lost in translation".
Obviously you didn't read the whole thread where I later clarified that the NT gospels were spoken in Aramaic, first written in Greek, then written in Aramaic from the Greek. Further clarification was that the Pesh_tta was not translated from the Greek, but from the oldest Aramaic manuscripts ( originally translated from the Greek documents) into Syriac, a form of Aramaic. Then that translation was translated into English......which is the subject of this thread in the first place. Then, you quoted a post where I offered the counter view from Pesh_tta.org and then claimed it was what I wrote and was my opinion. So that's two errors on your part. Apology accepted. Perhaps you would enjoy yourself more if you focused on actually contributing something useful to the topic under discussion rather than making it your mission in life to "catch" me in some irrelevant error. Stalking doesn't look good on anyone's resume. My mission in life is not "catch" you in your errors, you are just aren't that important in the overall mission in my life.
"Stalking" truth & proofs of premises that are made are very much a "mission" of mine
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Mar 23, 2016 17:36:31 GMT -5
How about considering that yes, when Jesus claimed that He was the Son of God, He also meant that all of us, and not just Him uniquely, are the sons and daughters of God. How about considering that we are souls having a personal, individualized experience and, whether we realize it or not we are on a trip of discovering the divinity that is inherent in all of us.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 19:32:57 GMT -5
How about considering that yes, when Jesus claimed that He was the Son of God, He also meant that all of us, and not just Him uniquely, are the sons and daughters of God. How about considering that we are souls having a personal, individualized experience and, whether we realize it or not we are on a trip of discovering the divinity that is inherent in all of us. NO, -I personally don't consider that I am a daughter of God.
And NO, I don't believe that I have a "soul." No one has ever found a "soul" within the human body nor in any other living body, -even our closest relative on the evolutionary tree of life.
Why should we humans have a "soul" but others do not?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Apr 11, 2016 18:33:15 GMT -5
The soul, as I understand it, is invisible. I believe that all life, anywhere in the universe, has a soul, and is an extension and individualized particle of God, and that souls comprise, and make up, the wholeness of God the source . I believe in both human, animal, and spiritual evolution. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything, and I think it may be impossible, at this time, to prove the soul's existence. I believe that evidence is coming in time, and that in perhaps fifty years belief in an afterlife will be generally held.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 11, 2016 22:59:56 GMT -5
The soul, as I understand it, is invisible. I believe that all life, anywhere in the universe, has a soul, and is an extension and individualized particle of God, and that souls comprise, and make up, the wholeness of God the source . I believe in both human, animal, and spiritual evolution. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything, and I think it may be impossible, at this time, to prove the soul's existence. I believe that evidence is coming in time, and that in perhaps fifty years belief in an afterlife will be generally believed. I believe in spiritual evolution also, I believe that God wants our spirit to evolve into the image of his, through his son Jesus Christ. And we do that by following him and when Gods spirit is dwelling within, he will be changing our hearts and our likeness into his. Thus we will be at one with God and Christ and being a temple made not with men's hands, but a temple made by the hand of the living God. And the spirit of Christ will be seen in us, bringing Gods love to those we meet.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 12, 2016 3:43:07 GMT -5
The soul, as I understand it, is invisible. I believe that all life, anywhere in the universe, has a soul, and is an extension and individualized particle of God, and that souls comprise, and make up, the wholeness of God the source . I believe in both human, animal, and spiritual evolution. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything, and I think it may be impossible, at this time, to prove the soul's existence. I believe that evidence is coming in time, and that in perhaps fifty years belief in an afterlife will be generally believed. Yes, of course the soul is invisible because it doesn't exist except in human hopes.
What evidence do you see that causes you to think that in time a "belief in an afterlife will be generally believed?"
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Apr 12, 2016 18:02:24 GMT -5
I agree with you, maryhig, as far as that goes. I go on to take a strong leaning towards an eastern outlook toward Yeshua, as I prefer to call him. Also referred to as Isa in the far east.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 18:50:37 GMT -5
How about considering that yes, when Jesus claimed that He was the Son of God, He also meant that all of us, and not just Him uniquely, are the sons and daughters of God. How about considering that we are souls having a personal, individualized experience and, whether we realize it or not we are on a trip of discovering the divinity that is inherent in all of us. Jesus called himself the Son of Man. It was others who gave him the title Son of God.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 18:51:42 GMT -5
The soul, as I understand it, is invisible. I believe that all life, anywhere in the universe, has a soul, and is an extension and individualized particle of God, and that souls comprise, and make up, the wholeness of God the source . I believe in both human, animal, and spiritual evolution. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything, and I think it may be impossible, at this time, to prove the soul's existence. I believe that evidence is coming in time, and that in perhaps fifty years belief in an afterlife will be generally believed. I believe in spiritual evolution also, I believe that God wants our spirit to evolve into the image of his, through his son Jesus Christ. And we do that by following him and when Gods spirit is dwelling within, he will be changing our hearts and our likeness into his. Thus we will be at one with God and Christ and being a temple made not with men's hands, but a temple made by the hand of the living God. And the spirit of Christ will be seen in us, bringing Gods love to those we meet. So in 500 years your theology could possibly be out of date???
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 12, 2016 21:37:23 GMT -5
How about considering that yes, when Jesus claimed that He was the Son of God, He also meant that all of us, and not just Him uniquely, are the sons and daughters of God. How about considering that we are souls having a personal, individualized experience and, whether we realize it or not we are on a trip of discovering the divinity that is inherent in all of us. Jesus called himself the Son of Man. It was others who gave him the title Son of God. John 10 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Matthew 10 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mark 14 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 21:56:01 GMT -5
Jesus called himself the Son of Man. It was others who gave him the title Son of God. John 10 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Matthew 10 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mark 14 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can't you find anything in Jesus "gospel preaching" where "he" pronounced himself the son of god. Compare this with the times he actually without being asked called himself the son on Man.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 12, 2016 22:11:25 GMT -5
John 10 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Matthew 10 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mark 14 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can't you find anything in Jesus "gospel preaching" where "he" pronounced himself the son of god. Compare this with the times he actually without being asked called himself the son on Man. You didn't ask about him preaching it, you said that Jesus didn't say he was the son of God, but he did. Jesus told his diciples not to tell anyone who he is, God will reveal to those who love him who Jesus is, as he did with Peter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 22:18:27 GMT -5
John 10 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Matthew 10 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Mark 14 Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can't you find anything in Jesus "gospel preaching" where "he" pronounced himself the son of god. Compare this with the times he actually without being asked called himself the son on Man. I would think if he said "because I said, I am the Son of God" that would be enough proof that he said it...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 23:09:23 GMT -5
Can't you find anything in Jesus "gospel preaching" where "he" pronounced himself the son of god. Compare this with the times he actually without being asked called himself the son on Man. You didn't ask about him preaching it, you said that Jesus didn't say he was the son of God, but he did. Jesus told his diciples not to tell anyone who he is, God will reveal to those who love him who Jesus is, as he did with Peter. Back to only special people know anything.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 23:10:33 GMT -5
Can't you find anything in Jesus "gospel preaching" where "he" pronounced himself the son of god. Compare this with the times he actually without being asked called himself the son on Man. I would think if he said "because I said, I am the Son of God" that would be enough proof that he said it... But HE didn't say that. How would one say that in Aramaic?
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 12, 2016 23:13:36 GMT -5
You didn't ask about him preaching it, you said that Jesus didn't say he was the son of God, but he did. Jesus told his diciples not to tell anyone who he is, God will reveal to those who love him who Jesus is, as he did with Peter. Back to only special people know anything. There's nothing special about me, I just believe Jesus and love God!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 23:15:50 GMT -5
Back to only special people know anything. There's nothing special about me, I just believe Jesus and love God! And most other people don't. That makes you special.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 12, 2016 23:19:57 GMT -5
There's nothing special about me, I just believe Jesus and love God! And most other people don't. That makes you special. Am I? You know more about me than I do then!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2016 23:36:08 GMT -5
And most other people don't. That makes you special. Am I? You know more about me than I do then! Perhaps I do.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 18, 2016 17:11:27 GMT -5
The soul, as I understand it, is invisible. I believe that all life, anywhere in the universe, has a soul, and is an extension and individualized particle of God, and that souls comprise, and make up, the wholeness of God the source . I believe in both human, animal, and spiritual evolution. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything, and I think it may be impossible, at this time, to prove the soul's existence. I believe that evidence is coming in time, and that in perhaps fifty years belief in an afterlife will be generally held. Oh my god! (Pun intended.)
I certainly hope not!
That would mean that the world had undergone some terrible catastrophic event that caused us to lose the present day knowledge that we have achieved and had thrown mankind back into a dark age when life was so terrible that humankind longed for an afterlife once again.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 18, 2016 18:50:37 GMT -5
The soul, as I understand it, is invisible. I believe that all life, anywhere in the universe, has a soul, and is an extension and individualized particle of God, and that souls comprise, and make up, the wholeness of God the source . I believe in both human, animal, and spiritual evolution. I'm not interested in trying to prove anything, and I think it may be impossible, at this time, to prove the soul's existence. I believe that evidence is coming in time, and that in perhaps fifty years belief in an afterlife will be generally held. Oh my god! (Pun intended.)
I certainly hope not!
That would mean that the world had undergone some terrible catastrophic event that caused us to lose the present day knowledge that we have achieved and had thrown mankind back into a dark age when life was so terrible that humankind longed for an afterlife once again.Or it would mean that observable, verifiable and repeatable evidence of an afterlife was discovered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 21:43:42 GMT -5
I would think if he said "because I said, I am the Son of God" that would be enough proof that he said it... But HE didn't say that. How would one say that in Aramaic? Okay, now that the Aramaic can of worms has been opened, in that Language John 8:12 records Yahu'shuah stated outright "I am the living God."
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 18, 2016 21:54:07 GMT -5
But HE didn't say that. How would one say that in Aramaic? Okay, now that the Aramaic can of worms has been opened, in that Language John 8:12 records Yahu'shuah stated outright "I am the living God." What does Aramaic say in v 25-26?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 22:34:14 GMT -5
Okay, now that the Aramaic can of worms has been opened, in that Language John 8:12 records Yahu'shuah stated outright "I am the living God." What does Aramaic say in v 25-26? My Aramaic Bible states: (beginning John 8:24) "he said unto them, Unless you believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins...Yahu'shuah spoke again to them, when you have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall you know that I AM THE LIVING GOD..." In between He is recorded speaking of his Father's words confirming His own, and Himself being of the Father.
People who believe the Bible was first recorded in KJV Engish, or even entirely in Greek simply err.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 18, 2016 23:38:00 GMT -5
But HE didn't say that. How would one say that in Aramaic? Okay, now that the Aramaic can of worms has been opened, in that Language John 8:12 records Yahu'shuah stated outright "I am the living God." John is the book that contradicts the other gospels about Jesus Christology. It would never have been included in the New Testament, except that those who included it found that it also said that Jesus became a Hu-man. You'll also find a chapterS-long supposed-to-be sermon delivered by Jesus in the gospel of John. It was written a century after Jesus, and no one knows who recorded the original supposed word-for-word text.
|
|