If you do Not believe that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, than who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

[rev_kevin]

Peshitta is Eastern Aramaic, is it not Kevin? Whereas, Jesus would have certainly spoke Western Aramaic due to the geography alone; correct?
Is this just a rumor you have researched? It sounds very SDA to me… What makes you think Christ spoke Peshitta anyways Kevin?

Could you do the same research using Qumran Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud, or even Samaritan Aramaic,(although, I realize none of these would be the exact dialect of Christ) and compare your research?

www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/_MarYah htm

 

[Irish_Polock]

www.intergate.com/~jcordaro/_MarYah htm

Yes Reverend,

This site does nothing for your claim though. The fact remains, Jesus most certainly spoke a version of Western Aramaic that would not fit this mold you - or this SDA website - are trying to promulgate. This subject has been debated between the Assyrian Church of the East and Roman theologians for some time, if I remember correctly.

 

[rev_kevin]

I have already debunked whomever’s research that was. The fact that you believe that Jesus spoke a Eastern Dialect is odd to me Kevin, form what I know of you anyways. So think about it, do you honestly feel Jesus spoke this dialect of Aramaic? Or did you go to a SDA service this past Saturday? Mind you kevin, this is the same argument that the SDA - whom I feel, tend to go OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE DISHONEST, especially concerning apologetics with Roman Catholics - have given me on this very subject.

The burden of proof is yours Kevin, you have made the claim that Christ Spoke this Dialect; now I am demanding that you give us at least some evidence that supports your theory.

The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means “Straight”, in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.

In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

“With reference to…the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”

The Aramaic in which the Bible called “Assakhta Peshitta” is written, known as the Peshitta Text, is in the dialect of northwest Mesopotamia as it evolved and was highly perfected in Orhai, once a city-kingdom, later called Edessa by the Greeks, and now called Urfa in Turkey. Harran, the city of Abraham’s brother Nahor, lies 38 kilometers southeast of Orhai. The large colony of Orhai Jews, and the Jewish colonies in Assyria in the kingdom of Adiabene whose royal house had converted to Judaism, possessed most of the Bible in this dialect, the Peshitta Tenakh. This version was taken over by all the Churches in the East, which used, and still use Aramaic, as far as India, and formerly in Turkestan and China. The Peshitta Tenakh was completed during Apostolic times with the writings of the New Testament.

www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes Reverend,

This site does nothing for your claim though. The fact remains, Jesus most certainly spoke a version of Western Aramaic that would not fit this mold you - or this SDA website - are trying to promulgate. This subject has been debated between the Assyrian Church of the East and Roman theologians for some time, if I remember correctly.

I was just showing where I got the info.

 

[Irish_Polock]

The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means “Straight”, in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.

In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

“With reference to…the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”

The Aramaic in which the Bible called “Assakhta Peshitta” is written, known as the Peshitta Text, is in the dialect of northwest Mesopotamia as it evolved and was highly perfected in Orhai, once a city-kingdom, later called Edessa by the Greeks, and now called Urfa in Turkey. Harran, the city of Abraham’s brother Nahor, lies 38 kilometers southeast of Orhai. The large colony of Orhai Jews, and the Jewish colonies in Assyria in the kingdom of Adiabene whose royal house had converted to Judaism, possessed most of the Bible in this dialect, the Peshitta Tenakh. This version was taken over by all the Churches in the East, which used, and still use Aramaic, as far as India, and formerly in Turkestan and China. The Peshitta Tenakh was completed during Apostolic times with the writings of the New Testament.

www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

Do you know of the theology of “the Church of the East” Reverend? If not, I would suggest you might look into it.

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes Reverend,

This site does nothing for your claim though. The fact remains, Jesus most certainly spoke a version of Western Aramaic that would not fit this mold you - or this SDA website - are trying to promulgate. This subject has been debated between the Assyrian Church of the East and Roman theologians for some time, if I remember correctly.

Eastern vs. Western Peshitta readings
The Eastern & Western texts are very, very close in their readings; indeed, they are practically identical on every page, except for the Western 5 books (2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation) and pericope adultera in John 7:53-8:11. In the few other places where they differ, there is essentially a doctrinal controversy at stake between the Eastern and Western churches, which is over the doctrine of the Person of Christ: Nestorianism in the East versus Monophysitism in the West. Nestorius taught that
Christ had two natures (human and divine) and two “qnomas” (one human and one divine) in one Person.
A “qnoma” is essentially translated “self” or “person” in the scriptures. Monophysitism teaches that Christ has only one nature and one qnoma, both divine. It is likely that the Nestorian church essentially modified a few verses to support their doctrines as the correct ones. If we look at the Greek mss., which represent a 1st century translation of the NT, we find Eastern and Western type readings and mss, but in the pertinent places where the Peshitta mss. differ most significantly- Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9,16 primarily,
the Greek mss. almost universally support the Western readings. The items marked with an (*) are likely Nestorian modifications to the Western mss. There are also many words reflecting a difference in dialect that are not listed here; The name of God is written as ³Marya´ in the Eastern texts, and ³Morya´ in the West, to name one. This is why the Eastern texts are commonly called the ³Peshitta,´ and the Western
scrolls are called the ³Peshitto´ as well

www.scribd.com › Books - Non-fiction › Religion & Spirituality

 

[Cinette]

I’m not saying that Jesus isn’t God because today we know he is but back then I don’t think they knew that.

I understand more than you think I do. I’m a former Catholic.

*Catholics who leave the Church are usually those who were poorly Catechised (like me). Another reason for certain Catholics who leave is because of divorce and those who prefer to believe what they want to believe.

*

 

[rev_kevin]

*Catholics who leave the Church are usually those who were poorly Catechised (like me). Another reason for certain Catholics who leave is because of divorce and those who prefer to believe what they want to believe.

*

Well I left after being in a semianry to be a priest because I could not agree with some of the teachings that were being taught. Being raised Catholic as a child I would believe anything but as a adult, I see things in a much different light. Now I feel God in a way that is hard to discribe. Its not like when I was Catholic or in a seminary where I really didn’t feel God. Oh I thought I did but I really didn’t. Now its a different story. I feel the presence of him in my life in a much stronger way than ever before. So to say being poorly Catechised can’t be said about everyone, certainly not me.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Eastern vs. Western Peshitta readings
The Eastern & Western texts are very, very close in their readings; indeed, they are practically identical on every page, except for the Western 5 books (2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation) and pericope adultera in John 7:53-8:11. In the few other places where they differ, there is essentially a doctrinal controversy at stake between the Eastern and Western churches, which is over the doctrine of the Person of Christ: Nestorianism in the East versus Monophysitism in the West. Nestorius taught that
Christ had two natures (human and divine) and two “qnomas” (one human and one divine) in one Person.
A “qnoma” is essentially translated “self” or “person” in the scriptures. Monophysitism teaches that Christ has only one nature and one qnoma, both divine. It is likely that the Nestorian church essentially modified a few verses to support their doctrines as the correct ones. If we look at the Greek mss., which represent a 1st century translation of the NT, we find Eastern and Western type readings and mss, but in the pertinent places where the Peshitta mss. differ most significantly- Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9,16 primarily,
the Greek mss. almost universally support the Western readings. The items marked with an (*) are likely Nestorian modifications to the Western mss. There are also many words reflecting a difference in dialect that are not listed here; The name of God is written as ³Marya´ in the Eastern texts, and ³Morya´ in the West, to name one. This is why the Eastern texts are commonly called the ³Peshitta,´ and the Western
scrolls are called the ³Peshitto´ as well

www.scribd.com › Books - Non-fiction › Religion & Spirituality

Reverend,

I have briefly read your above post, if you truly want to get into a Peshitta primacy debate please start a new thread in apologetics. This issue is about as constructive as a KJV primacy debate, and would certainly require a in depth study of the subject. I would reference this thread, if it may help you.

 

[PRmerger]

*Catholics who leave the Church are usually those who were poorly Catechised (like me). Another reason for certain Catholics who leave is because of divorce and those who prefer to believe what they want to believe.

*

Truer words were never spoken here!

(Ok, like the Bible, I am using hyperbole. Nevertheless, the sentiment is true–I heartily agree with your post, Cinette!)

My #1 pet peeve here is ex-Catholics who left the Church due to poor catechesis but are quite adamantine that what they are professing is indeed Catholic teaching.

And, yes, sadly, most other Catholics leave because they want to do what they want to do. They leave His Church and create a church in their own image, rather than conform their wills to Christ’s.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Well I left after being in a semianry to be a priest because I could not agree with some of the teachings that were being taught. Being raised Catholic as a child I would believe anything but as a adult, I see things in a much different light. Now I feel God in a way that is hard to discribe. Its not like when I was Catholic or in a seminary where I really didn’t feel God. Oh I thought I did but I really didn’t. Now its a different story. I feel the presence of him in my life in a much stronger way than ever before. So to say being poorly Catechised can’t be said about everyone, certainly not me.

Untrue Reverend,

I often find my self humbly correcting our Pastor in certain theological and liturgical matters. I often have answers that our Liturgy Director may not have. I find it odd that you didn’t know these teachings that you didn’t agree with until you were in seminary…

 

[rev_kevin]

Untrue Reverend,

I often find my self humbly correcting our Pastor in certain theological and liturgical matters. I often have answers that our Liturgy Director may not have. I find it odd that you didn’t know these teachings that you didn’t agree with until you were in seminary…

I was a kid as I stated and kids believe what they are told especially if you have gone to Catholic schools all your school days. them when getting into more depth in the seminary that is when I realized what in the world are they trying to feed me. Believe it or not, it don’t really matter to me. I know what happened, you don’t.

 

[rev_kevin]

Reverend,

I have briefly read your above post, if you truly want to get into a Peshitta primacy debate please start a new thread in apologetics. This issue is about as constructive as a KJV primacy debate, and would certainly require a in depth study of the subject. I would reference this thread, if it may help you.

Peshitta is Eastern Aramaic, is it not Kevin? Whereas, Jesus would have certainly spoke Western Aramaic due to the geography alone; correct?
Is this just a rumor you have researched? It sounds very SDA to me… What makes you think Christ spoke Peshitta anyways Kevin?

Could you do the same research using Qumran Aramaic, Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the Aramaic of the Jerusalem Talmud, or even Samaritan Aramaic,(although, I realize none of these would be the exact dialect of Christ) and compare your research?

Now you want to back off of it. But please don’t do anything you don’t want to do.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic of the OP please

 

[Irish_Polock]

The topic of the OP please

Way to Reverend, you got us in trouble.

Honestly, start a new thread on the subject of Peshitta primacy.

 

[rev_kevin]

Way to Reverend, you got us in trouble.

Honestly, start a new thread on the subject of Peshitta primacy.

If you noticed it was not about what you are saying. The Peshitta is still there. I was about the Catholic comments that were off topic. And all I stated was I am a former Catholic then someone else took it and ran with it. So don’t blame me. Now lets get back to the topic. OK
Now did Elizabeth KNOW that Mary’s baby was God. I say no.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If you noticed it was not about what you are saying. The Peshitta is still there. I was about the Catholic comments that were off topic. And all I stated was I am a former Catholic then someone else took it and ran with it. So don’t blame me. Now lets get back to the topic. OK
Now did Elizabeth KNOW that Mary’s baby was God. I say no.

All reason says yes. I am sure they knew a little bit about logic, to say the least. If they knew that the Child would be the Son of God, what do you think they thought about that? Son of God would mean that He would be fully divine. (Needless to say, Son of Man would mean that He would be fully human.) Hence, they had to have known that this Child was God. Perhaps, they did not understand it fully, but they certainly understood that He was God. Neither was it a misunderstanding. Unless the Angel Gabriel misunderstood in Matthew 1 when he referred to the Son as “Emmanuel.” St. Joseph certainly would have told Mary and Mary certainly would have told Elizabeth.

Now that we cleared that up… Elizabeth called Mary “mother of my Lord” right?

In this case, is the Person being referred to in “my Lord” God?

If not, then the Original Post is the question you need to answer.

If yes, then Mary IS the Mother of God. If you disagree with this sentence, then you are saying no to the question. If you still disagree while saying yes to the question, then you have to explain why it is not true that Mary is the mother of God. If you say that God cannot be born, then you disagree with the Bible because clearly, He was born. If you say that God is eternal and cannot have a mother because that would imply a beginning, then “mother of my Lord” in the Bible is wrong because “my Lord” in this case is referring specifically to God, Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

I take it you are going to create a straw man, twist the Truth a little or make up something in order to dodge the Truth, but I sure hope I am wrong.

Mary is the Mother of God. The “Mother of my Lord” IS the Mother of God. There is no way around it.

Mary is mother of my Lord.
My Lord IS God.
Mary is Mother of God.

No way around it. Just come home to the Church.

 

[rev_kevin]

All reason says yes. I am sure they knew a little bit about logic, to say the least. If they knew that the Child would be the Son of God, what do you think they thought about that? Son of God would mean that He would be fully divine. (Needless to say, Son of Man would mean that He would be fully human.) Hence, they had to have known that this Child was God. Perhaps, they did not understand it fully, but they certainly understood that He was God. Neither was it a misunderstanding. Unless the Angel Gabriel misunderstood in Matthew 1 when he referred to the Son as “Emmanuel.” St. Joseph certainly would have told Mary and Mary certainly would have told Elizabeth.

Now that we cleared that up… Elizabeth called Mary “mother of my Lord” right?

In this case, is the Person being referred to in “my Lord” God?

If not, then the Original Post is the question you need to answer.

If yes, then Mary IS the Mother of God. If you disagree with this sentence, then you are saying no to the question. If you still disagree while saying yes to the question, then you have to explain why it is not true that Mary is the mother of God. If you say that God cannot be born, then you disagree with the Bible because clearly, He was born. If you say that God is eternal and cannot have a mother because that would imply a beginning, then “mother of my Lord” in the Bible is wrong because “my Lord” in this case is referring specifically to God, Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

I take it you are going to create a straw man, twist the Truth a little or make up something in order to dodge the Truth, but I sure hope I am wrong.

Mary is the Mother of God. The “Mother of my Lord” IS the Mother of God. There is no way around it.

Mary is mother of my Lord.
My Lord IS God.
Mary is Mother of God.

No way around it. Just come home to the Church.

I never said that Mary is not the Mother of God. But did they realize it back then. I doubt it.
Now as stated before LORD has different meanings. To say that Elizabeth knew he was God seems way out there. I believe she used it as a title for someone who would be great, much like a king, which Jesus is, was called My Lord by his people. The kings mother would be known as the mother of my Lord also.

Emmanuel meaning: God with us/God (is) with us. Now this could refer to God’s word being brought to us throught his Son. The angel could have meant that the word of God will be with us through Jesus. Joseph could have taken it to mean it that way and he probably did. God (is) with us. God’s word is with us. Yes the WORD of God like you stated.

Now you would think I’m dodging the truth because you see the truth only one way as where I see it in many ways. I look at possibilities. Could it mean this or could it mean that. I make up my own mind, the mind that God gave me. I don’t let some church tell me how to think.

Mary is mother of my Lord.
My Lord IS God.
Mary is Mother of God.

Yes this is true but the question is not if I know it but did they know it. And I don’t believe they did.

Just come home to the Church. I am home. Jesus Christ is the true Church that dwells inside all believers. I once was lost but now I’m found.

 

[SunshineZA]

I never said that Mary is not the Mother of God. But did they realize it back then. I doubt it.
Now as stated before LORD has different meanings. To say that Elizabeth knew he was God seems way out there. I believe she used it as a title for someone who would be great, much like a king, which Jesus is, was called My Lord by his people. The kings mother would be known as the mother of my Lord also.

Emmanuel meaning: God with us/God (is) with us. Now this could refer to God’s word being brought to us throught his Son. The angel could have meant that the word of God will be with us through Jesus. Joseph could have taken it to mean it that way and he probably did. God (is) with us. God’s word is with us. Yes the WORD of God like you stated.

Now you would think I’m dodging the truth because you see the truth only one way as where I see it in many ways. I look at possibilities. Could it mean this or could it mean that. I make up my own mind, the mind that God gave me. I don’t let some church tell me how to think.

Mary is mother of my Lord.
My Lord IS God.
Mary is Mother of God.

Yes this is true but the question is not if I know it but did they know it. And I don’t believe they did.

Just come home to the Church. I am home. Jesus Christ is the true Church that dwells inside all believers. I once was lost but now I’m found.

Thank you Ref Kevin - having read all the posts I realize now that both you and Dokimas were arguing about who Elizabath said Jesus Christ Was.

Thanks for at last clearing the question of - ‘if you do not believe that Mary is the Mother of God who do YOU two say Jesus Christ is.’

I believe that you both confess that HE IS LORD!

 

[benedictus2]

She, Elizabeth, knew what Lord meant. It doesn’t mean God.

But you don’t know that. There is nowhere in the Bible that says she meant Lord but that this did not mean God.

And you still have not answered the question. This is probably the 6th time I will have asked you. What did she mean by the Lord.

It may refer to God but does not mean God.

That does not make sense. You say it “may” which give possibility, then you say “does not” which denies possibility.

It refers to what the Greek word means.

But Elizabeth did not speak Greek. She was a Jew. The common language at that time was Aramaic.

As Elvis has pointed out, she would have uttered the word Maryah which translates to Lord God.