Yuri Kuchinsky

I see... So you still favour the "Beyond the Looking Glass" origins of the Peshitta?

Quote:

If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is not the original.

If you have evidence then lets look at a specific instance of why the peshitta is the original.

Yours,

Yuri.

Amos

Well Jn.1:13 makes a distinction between "from above" and "from below" with "from above" being from God and "from below" from carnal desire. The difference between "from above" and "from below" is the origen of the idea that rebirth should take place. If it was from God (via Gabe--who is Gods only angel) it will be from above and if it was our own idea it will be from below. If from above we get a fish and will become the first beast of Rev. 14 for a short period of time and from from below we get a scorpion and become the second beast of Rev. 14 for life.

"From above" requires an immaculate virgin-like conception and "from below" will be anticipated beforehand and carefully plotted by fornicating evangelists in conjunction with our carnal desires such as the age of accountability, parents, girlfriends, fears, etc.

Notice also that what came across to Joseph as a dream was a direct message to Mary and this alone confirms that the rebirth of Joseph was incipient from God. I suppose you understand that Mary here was the resident woman in the soul of Joseph and that she was responsible for his return to Bethlehem because he was "as if pregnant with despair" and eager to give an account of himself. This journey to Bethlehem is directly opposite to his journey into the New Jerusalem at which time Joseph was fully in charge of his destiny.

Doctor X

No. "From below" is rather locative.

No. The person has to be "born from above" period. There is no second chance allowed as discussed above.

No textual support for that.

You meander. Please stick to the point. Jn did not write Revelations, incidentally.

No, neither the whore nor the blind man were products of "an immaculate virgin-like conception." Are we to gather that parthenogenesis was so much more common at the time?

Jn is making a political distinction. His "group"--his intended audience--is "from above" and, despite their lot and the fact that other groups have the nice chariots with power stirups, they are chosen for glory and "the others" are not.

Whatever. . . .

Ah! Ignoratio elenchi! The second part does not at all follow from the first. NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE EXIST THAT JUNIOR IS A REBORN JOSEPH as in his "dad" or "stepdad." If you wish to argue he is the OT "Joseph" . . . still problematic.

Given you have yet to provide textual support for your supposition I could not "understand" that which you try to attribute to me.

--J.D.

judge

Hi again Yuri...
OK heres a few examples.

1. Romans 5:7 mistranslated into greek. It only makes sense in Aramaic. The greek translators confused two very similar looking Aramaic words.

2.Corinthians 13.3 mistranslated in some greek mss and yet correctly translated in others. Here we have an aramaic word which had two meanings. Some translators went one way some went another way.

3. Mark 9:49 mistranslated into greek. Who ever heard of anything being salted with fire???
The Aramaic root could mean destroyed/scattered or salt!

Amos

"From below" is rather worldly, for sure.

I fully agree, but try and tell an evangelist that. He'll zap you as often as he can and once more for good measure. From his point of view it is believed that those he 'saves' will be in "his masion."


Angels are a bit enigmatic all right but Gabriel is directly from God and the rest are under the command of Mary. This would have to be true if God is the first cause and not the first and second casue.

But I think John did write the Revelations and gave you just one example of why I think he did.

Parthenogenesis is the only way because, if you remember, it was the tree of knowledge (wherein we are 'like god' and therefore masculine) that got us banned from Eden and so our return to Eden will be without the TOK in charge of our destiny. So in that sense are we 'all woman' and not human (if you allow me to place our humanity opposite to our womanity) and therefore parthenos in relation to God.

Oh I think it is very interesting to note that the very same messase what was spoken to Mary in Luke (the Annunciation) came across as a dream to Joseph in Matthew.

Joseph was a Jew here to be set free from the bondage of slavery and sin. For this to happen Christ (the messiah) was to be born unto him and the new creation was to be called Jesus and he carried the old ego identity of Joseph to the cross and later recalled the shepherds-called-to-apostles-after-metanoia into the upper so he could enjoy also the old Jerusalem in the New Jerusalem (new heaven and a new earth).OK, "pregant with despair" was from James Joyce and the "Journey to Bethlehem" as opposed to the "Triumphant Entry into the New Jerusalem" is from a Catholic paintings. Sorry about that.

Doctor X

Irrelevant. This is a discussion on Biblical Criticism & History. That someone does not know what the texts he blathers about actually say remains his problem.

The claim was that Gabe was:

. . . and I like to think I have a torrid affair with Uma Thurmon . . . the restraining order and pack of hounds indicate otherwise.

You would do well, again, to consult the scholarship.

Focus . . . focus on the point . . . the point was you claimed that followers of Jn--which would include the whore and blind man--were all immaculately conceived.

Since parthenogenesis does not actually occur in humans to produce a viable fetus. . . .

In other words, you theory does not fit with reality, let along the text of Jn.

Irrelevant--Non sequitur.

IF the above is true it DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR BELEIF THAT JUNIOR IS A REBORN JOSEPH.

However, the Lk Announciation [Lk 1:26-38--Ed.] is UTTERY DIFFERENT than the speech to Joseph in Mt 2:13.

Let us compare:

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him."

Mt 2:20 "Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead."

Lk 1:28-38And he [Gabe--Ed.] came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" . . . "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. [Tries to quote Isaiah and others.--Ed.]

Now, yes, both do use "the" and "a," but, otherwise, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

They are not the same in the Greek text either.

This leads me to wonder if you are dishonest by purposely trying to mislead with a complete falsehood, or you are sloppy because you have NOT READ THE TEXTS!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Huh.

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

One thing that's confusing me about the "genealogy of Mary" concept...

I've heard that the Jews didn't trace genealogies through women because they were unaware of the existence of the ovum: they regarded women as incubators of a man's sperm, therefore only the male line was important.

However, modern Jews consider "Jewishness" to be passed down the female line: the status of a prospective Jew's maternal ancestors is used to determine if he/she is a "true Jew" or not.

Does this indicate a change of belief regarding the importance of the female line, and if so, when did this take place? Did the Jews of 2000 years ago NOT use the female line to determine "Jewishness"?

The answer to this question seems rather critical here. Either there cannot be a genealogy for Mary, or the argument that "Jews didn't trace genealogies through women" is not valid.

Doctor X

Jack the Bodiless:

The problem is that, in the texts, both the Mattean and Lukan genealogies come to Joseph. Mt goes Abraham to Joseph while Lk goes Joseph to Abraham--reverse order.

Mary is NEVER Mentioned!

This is just a dishonest apology to try to resolve a contradiction.

--J.D.

judge

Both geneologies trace the male line.
Lukes geneology goes from father to son all the way to Joseph (husband of mary)

Matthews geneology traces father to son all the way to Joseph (father of mary)

The aramaic makes this clear. Joseph (husband of Mary) is described in Matthew 1:19 as her BAALA. Joseph (father of mary) is decscribed as her GOWRA


Does anyone here have an explanation for these two different words?

No...just a lot of hand waving.

here are two articles which may help.

http://www.peshitta.org/bethgaza/MoreOnGawra.htm


http://www.peshitta.org/bethgaza/Gabra.htm

Jack the Bodiless

Matthew begins with "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." According to your interpretation, it then seeks to trace the ancestry of Jesus through Mary.

...And Mary was, of course, a woman.