What Church Is Most Biblical?

[BrianH]

The point remains and is accurate. You do not have an Aramaic transcript of the events. You do not know what was said in Aramaic or if it was said in Aramaic. To rely on a nonexistent transcript is desperate, at the least.

 

[MariaG]

The point remains and is accurate. You do not have an Aramaic transcript of the events. You do not know what was said in Aramaic or if it was said in Aramaic. To rely on a nonexistent transcript is desperate, at the least.

Desparate? No, it is logical. It is using our reason and history to know that Christ’s native language was aramaic and in He certainly spoke it with His apostles. Faith does not always mean we have to divorce ourselves completely from history and reason.

 

[BrianH]

Desparate? No, it is logical. It is using our reason and history to know that Christ’s native language was aramaic and in He certainly spoke it with His apostles. Faith does not always mean we have to divorce ourselves completely from history and reason.

You dont see the inconsistency Maria? When the Greek word for cousin exists, and it does, the Aramaic is appealed to. But when is the last time the Aramaic was appealed to in the case of Luke 1:28? What is the Aramaic equivilent for “kecharitomene”?
Well, it doesn’t matter when I brought this up in a debate with a Catholic. What matters is the Greek they said…except…when they do not like the Greek, as in this case.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not true at all. Completely false.
Wikipedia, because it is the easiest to find

New Advent
Targum is the distinctive designation of the Aramaic translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament. After the return from exile Aramaic gradually won the ascendancy as the colloquial language over the slowly decaying Hebrew until, from probably the last century before the Christian era, Hebrew was hardly more than the language of the schools and of worship. As the majority of the population ceased to be conversant with the sacred language it became necessary to provide translations for the better understanding of the passages of the Bible read in Hebrew at the liturgical services. Thus to meet this need it became customary to add to the portions of the Scriptures read on the Sabbath an explanatory oral translation — a Targum. At first this was probably done only for the more difficult passages, but as time went on, for the entire text.

I think the Protoevangelium is complete garbage. How do you know which parts are garbage and which parts are not? What is your basis for accepting the parts you like and ignoring the parts you do not?

you already know my answer for that, and so do 2,000 years of scholarship and theology.

Or Wikipedia if you prefer. Why would the Hebrew need to be translated if everybody spoke Hebrew? They did not. They spoke Aramaic:
*
Targum

This article is about the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible. For other uses, see Targum (disambiguation).
A targum (Hebrew: תרגום, plural: targumim) is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) written or compiled in Palestine or in Babylonia from the Second Temple period until the early Middle Ages (late first millennium). Targum also means translation or interpretation. In Arabic Targem (verb) means to translate or interpret. (Mutargem = Translator/Interpreter).
**
Aramaic was the dominant language or lingua franca for hundreds of years in the major Jewish communities **of the Palestine and Babylonia. To facilitate the study of Tanakh and make its public reading understood, authoritative translations were required. *

I have to leave, now, but I’ll get to your question about picking and chosing between Aramaic and Greek.

 

[BrianH]

Why did Hegesippus, the earliest writer that we have that mentions James outside of the Bible, in 150 CE not use the Greek word for cousin when he wrote;

“Control of the church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord’s brother James”

Or this

“And there still survived of the Lord’s family the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be his brother, humanly speaking.”

 

[MariaG]

You dont see the inconsistency Maria? When the Greek word for cousin exists, and it does, the Aramaic is appealed to. But when is the last time the Aramaic was appealed to in the case of Luke 1:28? What is the Aramaic equivilent for “kecharitomene”?
Well, it doesn’t matter when I brought this up in a debate with a Catholic. What matters is the Greek they said…except…when they do not like the Greek, as in this case.

I personally find it a very valid question. And I would also find it inconsistent for one not to seek out the Aramaic when the question was posed.

I found this here on the forums. I am still looking for a more “scholarly” source. It is in this thread "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

origianlly posted by NewAbdalMaseeh

The Syrian Aramaic translation of Luke 1:28 in the Pesheetto (AKA Peshitta) has malyat taybooto, which literally means “stuffed with grace”. I discuss this in a little more detail in the following entry on my blog:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu…ogID=269593299

 

[MariaG]

I also found this on why even though there was a word in Greek for cousin, why they more general word “brother” was used.

from Catholic United for the Faith
When Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek – the version called the “Septuagint” or “LXX” – they had two options. They could translate Genesis 14:14 dynamically, because Greek has a word that means “nephew.” On the other hand, they could translate it literally as “brother,” following the Hebrew expression or idiom. Because they were Jews who understood the Hebrew idiom, they chose the Greek word adelphos (brother) as a translation of ach (brother, relative). This is a consistent practice in the Old Testament.[2] In contrast, the English translators use a dynamic translation and call Lot Abraham’s nephew.

Still looking for a Protestant source.

Since there are Protestant sources that also say that Peter and the Rock argument are incorrect, (ie Catholics are right), I would assume there would be a Protestant source for this as well.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[qui_est_ce]

I personally find it a very valid question. And I would also find it inconsistent for one not to seek out the Aramaic when the question was posed.

I found this here on the forums. I am still looking for a more “scholarly” source. It is in this thread "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

Thanks for doing my homework for me!

 

[qui_est_ce]

I also found this on why even though there was a word in Greek for cousin, why they more general word “brother” was used.

Still looking for a Protestant source.

Since there are Protestant sources that also say that Peter and the Rock argument are incorrect, (ie Catholics are right), I would assume there would be a Protestant source for this as well.

God Bless,
Maria

Wikipedia says that Peter, was addressed as Rock by the Lord, and they added an “S” make the word a masculine because Rock Cepha, (in Aramaic) is femine. I wouldn’t exactly call Wikipedia neutral, but it is not a Catholic encycolpedia.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why did Hegesippus, the earliest writer that we have that mentions James outside of the Bible, in 150 CE not use the Greek word for cousin when he wrote;

Or this

It is still being used in the Semitic sense. You can have a literalist translation or a literal one. You have to know the audience to understand Scripture, the Aramaic speaking Jews would know what “brother” meant. Greek translation may have been literal translation of Aramaic. We do know Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that was translated into the Greek for the Hellenist Jewish Christian converts. Maybe even a bad translation. But it is what it is, and scholars have to pore over ALL the texts to determine what would have been said. This is not something I could do for myself, even if I were fluent in all three languages. I have to rely on an outside source for this.

The scholarship of the Bible is topic of another thread. If you have access to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, and can claim Biblical scholarship, start a thread that addresses this issue.

Catholics rely on the Magesterium. We do not constantly reinvent the wheel to prove things to ourselves that have been hashed out over the centuries. We can read all about it in history.

 

[BrianH]

It is still being used in the Semitic sense. You can have a literalist translation or a literal one. You have to know the audience to understand Scripture, the Aramaic speaking Jews would know what “brother” meant. Greek translation may have been literal translation of Aramaic. We do know Jesus spoke Aramaic, and that was translated into the Greek for the Hellenist Jewish Christian converts. Maybe even a bad translation. But it is what it is, and scholars have to pore over ALL the texts to determine what would have been said. This is not something I could do for myself, even if I were fluent in all three languages. I have to rely on an outside source for this.

The scholarship of the Bible is topic of another thread. If you have access to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, and can claim Biblical scholarship, start a thread that addresses this issue.

Catholics rely on the Magesterium. We do not constantly reinvent the wheel to prove things to ourselves that have been hashed out over the centuries. We can read all about it in history.

Expand why you think he is using brother in the year 150 CE in a “Semetic” sense.

 

[jmcrae]

Expand why you think he is using brother in the year 150 CE in a “Semetic” sense.

In 150 CE, it was still being understood that Mary had no other children. The concept or “discovery” that Mary had all these other children did not occur until the late 1800s - up until that point, both Protestants and Catholics, reaching back to 50 AD, always believed that Mary had left this earth as a virgin.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Expand why you think he is using brother in the year 150 CE in a “Semetic” sense.

You are missing the point I was making, which is the audience to which the message was addressed. I’ll play along once more, but this is off topic.

Why did Jesus give His mother to the Apostle whom he loved, (we say John, what do you say), if Jesus had brothers, there would have been no need to do this.

 

[qui_est_ce]

In 150 CE, it was still being understood that Mary had no other children. The concept or “discovery” that Mary had all these other children did not occur until the late 1800s - up until that point, both Protestants and Catholics, reaching back to 50 AD, always believed that Mary had left this earth as a virgin.

Never before noticed that 2001 is a link you your witness. Great, thank you for sharing.

 

[BrianH]

In 150 CE, it was still being understood that Mary had no other children. The concept or “discovery” that Mary had all these other children did not occur until the late 1800s - up until that point, both Protestants and Catholics, reaching back to 50 AD, always believed that Mary had left this earth as a virgin.

How do you know this? I mean I know why you believe it but what proof do you offer?

 

[BrianH]

You are missing the point I was making, which is the audience to which the message was addressed. I’ll play along once more, but this is off topic.

Why did Jesus give His mother to the Apostle whom he loved, (we say John, what do you say), if Jesus had brothers, there would have been no need to do this.

The general consensus is the brothers were not yet believers. Perhaps this is what snapped them into shape. The equal question is why did Christ not give the care of his mother to her own nephews(if they were cousins) or her own step children but instead to someone not even related?

 

[jmcrae]

How do you know this? I mean I know why you believe it but what proof do you offer?

The writings of Protestants themselves. My source is The World’s Great Orations which was published in the late 1890s - just look at the dates on the sermons, to see what I mean.

Before about 1860, they were all teaching that Mary was a virgin, and had no other children. Around the mid-1800s, we start to see preachers talking about Mary having these other children - but not before that. Great Orations goes back to pre-Christian times - it’s not biased, other than just whatever the editors thought was “great.”

 

[jmcrae]

The general consensus is the brothers were not yet believers. Perhaps this is what snapped them into shape.

Why would it have mattered whether they were believers, or not? They still had the duty to care for their mother. And if Jesus was discriminating against them for their lack of belief, John would have mentioned that - there would have been a line in there that said, “For the brothers of Jesus were infidels; therefore, He gave her to the disciple whom He loved.”

The equal question is why did Christ not give the care of his mother to her own nephews(if they were cousins) or her own step children but instead to someone not even related?

Because they had their own mother to care for. It was not their duty by law to care for their father’s wife, or their aunt - only their own mother.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The general consensus is the brothers were not yet believers. Perhaps this is what snapped them into shape. The equal question is why did Christ not give the care of his mother to her own nephews(if they were cousins) or her own step children but instead to someone not even related?

It is not my consensus, nor that of Catholic Theologians, nor of Martin Luther. Anyway, it’s irrelevant whether they are believers or not. They were Jews and Mary was Jewish and so was Jesus and so was John. Nobody was really a believer at this point. Nobody really understood what was going on until Pentecost.
Now we are off topic. Back to the topic.

 

[MariaG]

The general consensus is the brothers were not yet believers. Perhaps this is what snapped them into shape. The equal question is why did Christ not give the care of his mother to her own nephews(if they were cousins) or her own step children but instead to someone not even related?

The general consensus? Of whom in what year was this consensus?

And respectfully, you ask for proof, yet give the “general consensus”? I respect and believe a person should ask for proof, but I sincerely think you should apply the same standards to your own information you share and believe. The “general consensus” you speak of was not general until just a few short hundred years ago. That should concern any Christian, for scripture warns of those who will come along.

In 150 CE, it was still being understood that Mary had no other children. The concept or “discovery” that Mary had all these other children did not occur until the late 1800s - up until that point, both Protestants and Catholics, reaching back to 50 AD, always believed that Mary had left this earth as a virgin.

How do you know this? I mean I know why you believe it but what proof do you offer?