judge

No this is your conjecture. You take up this position before you examine the evidence.

Chris Weimer

Sorry, judge, but...what evidence? Everything you've presented here has been torn to bollocks.

spin

cass256

[QUOTE=spin]Well, i am sure this is going to give me trouble. i am not denying that Josephus spoke Hebrew, if he actually says he does. The proof which makes even one believe the non turn coat, is what exactly? References to make us believe Josephus? What reason did he give when he turned himself over to become a Roman after all his fellow troops committed suicide, except josephus, as opposed to be taken over by romans? Who has written about josephus and holds any weight to back what he says. The Bible often asks for at least two witnesses. apparently there was not more than 1? or were they just plain dead? josephus himself didn't seem he was mistusted as an enemy, instead he became consultant. Was that against his own people.?
I'm willing to read sources who have a first hand knowledge if any could point them out to me. It seems he was not the only Jew to turn roman. Saul at around the same period became Paul and was treated quite well in Rome, no? How DO we know thqat Paul and Josephus may have even been the same person? If this is totally off the mark ? I am willing for counter claims with independant back up. I think it is a question begging to be asked. Considering all the cloudy information at that exact time period. josephus wrote Greek and Aramaic? i know I posted it, but at the moment it is gettting jumbled.

Seems better argument than belaboring the same worn out ping pong. I don't hold the view, i would simply like it to be substantiated, by more than just Josephus' word.

It is not as much about the Hebrew as it is this great trust in josephus ultimate authority, despite some questionable circumstances. A Pity his time period is when it is. Everything to me is suspect.

ok, blast away, but please no whining anyone. It is not an attack or conspiracy against Hebrew. I just like facts to be proven on more than say so. By an ex Judean roman. maybe he shared a cell with Paul at one time. ?.
just curious.

cass256

and the translation of the greek words, you ignore.

Whose hand wrote the Greek Texts? No proof!

You havn't provided a reason that it seems such.

I was not the one that brought up the idea of conspiracy, is was some other poster. I hope your emot icon got rug burn.

spin

Wot?

Start with what you've got, ie Greek texts and work from there.

As the onus is on your weird claim: "It makes no sense to me that Christians would need to lose Hebrew." Please justify your presuppositions and then your claim, thank you.

I am simply working from a literary text.

spin

It is sufficient that Josephus knew what Hebrew was as he demonstrates elsewhere, to show those who wish to translate "Hebrew" -- when used by people of basically Josephus's time -- into "Aramaic" that they need to make a substantive case to show why "Hebrew" actually means "Aramaic" and until they can do that their positions remain laughable. :rolling:


spin

Pilate

Here is a sample of the Guru's assertions.
Aren't these assertions convincing? "Worhip him O sheep, for he is thine unassailable redeemer ..." (Pilatians 3:1)

The Guru no comprende Greek: that Evraisti means the language of the Hebrew people. The suffix -sti indicates "the language of." Advice to Guru: stay with what you know. Don't mess with Greek. Here is a tip: donate your defunct Greek dictionary to a fundie: ... confuse the enemy!!! :sneaky:

One appeals to authority when he has limited knowldge (the authority knows better). Guru,I know you want to be a freethinker. But don't confuse the term Freethinker with know-it-all. It is not shame not to know. It is shameful to pretend to know.

There were two kinds of Christians (and many denominations): The Jewish Christians (called Hebrews in the book of Acts) and the Hellenist Christians (called Grecians in the book of Acts). The Jewish Christians spoke Aramaic (their Gospel was in Aramaic). The Hellenist Christians (such as Paul) spoke Aramaic and Greek and followed the customs of the Greeks (no circumcision).

Gotcha! ... Blunder!!The Guru struck out again!!! :jump: This statement reveals his ignorance.
Here is what Encyclopaedia Britannica says (article: Mishna. Look it up.)
“annotations of it called the Gemara, or Talmud. In the broader sense of the latter terms, the Mishna and Gemara together make up the Talmud .�
The Mishna is part of the Talmud!!! The Shepherd (the Guru is truly a shepherd) blundered again and his sheep will soon scatter. "for it is written: " 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' (Matthew 26:31 NIV) " :rolling: Folks, this is debate enhanced with commedy. Relax and have a sense of humor. There is more coming.
Going back to the argument: The Mishna is a later part of the Talmud.
I am no expert (like the Guru) in Hebrew, so I will present what the authorities wrote on this subject"
"... also spelled MISHNAH, the oldest authoritative postbiblical collection and codification of Jewish oral laws, systematically compiled by numerous scholars (called tannaim) over a period of about two centuries. The codification was given final form early in the 3rd century AD by Judah ha-Nasi."_ Encyclopaedia Britannica, article: Mishna
A quote from THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY:
The principal source of information about early rabbinic Judaism is the Mishna, a philosophical legal treatise written in Hebrew and produced in Palestine about 200 C.E. under the auspices of the Patriarch Judah I, known familiarly as Rabbi. The Mishna is the first collection of the rabbis’ own tradition and teaching, primarily on matters of halakhah (religious law and practice). Much of the Mishna is anonymous
Aricle: Judaism in the Greco-Roman period, Sub-Article: Early Rabbinic Judaism


Advice to guru. Read the Bible and you will be a wiser man: "first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5 NIV)
First learn Greek, learn that the Mishna is part of the Talmud, that the the Greek word "god" is a noun, that the word Golgotha, is masculine, and that the Aramaic was the common language of Israel in the times of Jesus, and then you can give advice to others.

A mere rookie chopped this guru to pieces. I magine what a professional, well read debater could do to him!!!
Problem #1:The guru has been allowed to thrive in a protective environment. He is the king of this forum, but he cannot survive outside, in the real world.
We will have another session of debate enhaned with comedy as soon as the guru makes another of his blundering, arrogant, ignorant, and malevolent statements!!!! :rolling:

(This comedy series- "exposing the blunders of the Guru"- will continue until the guru learns his stuff and adopts a humble attitude towards the blunders of others.)

Toto

Pilate - check you Private Messages before you post again.

spin

When you decontextualise comments you are misrepresenting them, Pilate. You indicate that you aren't interested in being honest. You are just trying to win points. I'll give you a brownie point for effort.

When you falsely represent what another person says, you are being dishonest, Pilate. No brownie point this time.

You still haven't demonstrated that your opinion about Golgotha is anything more than that. You still haven't actually parsed ton golgoQan topon so that you can make sense of what was written, especially when Mt doesn't agree with your approach to the text as that writer felt the necessity to correct Mk. Mt's parallel, eis topon legomenon golgoQa o estin legomenos kraniou topos, which improves the first part, using a better preposition, omits the article and puts an indeclinable golgoQa in apposition with topon, while leaving the second part quite similar, suggesting that Mk had the grammar screwed up. So how do you parse ton golgoQan topon, considering that the parallel has kraniou in the genitive, dependent on topos and that Mt felt it necessary to correct it? It seems that your trumpeting has been based on the ungrammaticality of your source and doesn't reflect anything.

And let's look at your profound grammatical analysis: The suffix -sti indicates "the language of". This is just a part of an effort to negate the implication that ebraisti means the Hebrew language. You want to say, that the language of the Hebrews was not Hebrew, even though a Hebrew who knows what the term means uses it to mean the Hebrew language (see AJ 10.1.2). So, why contradict him when you have no evidence at all? No brownie point again.

No, one appeals to the evidence that the authority may provide you with. If the authority doesn't proffer evidence then all you have is opinion. Appeals to authority in debate are simply meaningless. Again no brownie point.

Could you please relate all this opinion to ancient literature and the way that literature uses the term equating to "Chaldee"? Brownie point pending, Pilate.



The Mishnah is a collection of early rabbinical works, up to the 3rd c. CE. These were later commented on, ie the Gemara. Then the two sources were combined into the (two) Talmuds, 5th c. CE. This in no way changes the fact that the Mishnah is itself a separate work from the Talmuds. It is hysterical to watch you open your mouth to step in it in an effort to earn brownie points, Pilate.

The funny thing is that you looked up Mishnah and found that it was a separate work and yet it didn't go ding-dong. So full of hurt pride.

Yup.

I wouldn't even dare to call you a tyro in the subject of Hebrew literature. You seem to shun knowledge and haven't got a clue what you are talking about when you blunder into this field, relying on your lack of reading skills. Pilate, why don't you stick with what you know, whatever that is.

Get it, Pilate? How embarrassing you were earlier in your post. This is for you: And a brownie point to make you feel better.

Here's a good starting point to get information about Jewish literature, a dedicated encyclopaedia which also provides evidence.

<deleted>

Your rushes to the nearest encyclopaedia are commendable, but ultimately unfruitful: when you don't know anything about a subject you need to do more than appeal to encyclopaedias.


spin