Toto

Could you list these sources for us?

cass256

Well, I have to think that a witness would have heard the Hebrew. One who was not a witness, but who looked at Psalm 22 and wanted to fit Jesus into the hand foot piercing "prophecy" of that Psalm of David, would have later put those words in his mouth. The question would have to be when, and what version of the Old Testament did they use? If they did not understand hebrew, then they would have had to translate the words in whatever version of Aramaic or Syriac they spoke or understood. It is clear that the writers did not know each other. Mark was retelling the story from Peter, or so they say. matthew was supposed to have been an Apostle and eye witness. Why did he not use the Hebrew for "forsaken"? His My god is pretty much there.
The problem with Matthew is that he tries too hard to fit Jesus into fufilments, so much so that he puts him on both a donkey and it's foal at the same time, because of a misread of the lowly king donkey ride verse. That makes me think, along with putting non hebrew words as fufilling Psalm 22, that this matthew is not the Apostle either, if they existed.

Yes, it is a script. I just can't believe at the least they would have jesus cry out in the biblical Hebrew, and not the Syriac from the greek, if that is what is going on.
The only thing Matthew got right was the My God. Which only means Jesus was not god. He was probably wishing his god was EL and not YaHWeh so he didn't have to be hanging on the cross by pierced feet..

(Not to mention the wrists instead of hands. Small oversight.)

I prefer to take that small portion of the psalm, and have it be that Yeshua was calling to El, after he realizes something has gone wrong. His name was supposed to be ImmanuEL, so there's been a mistake! ouch!

Pilate

Toto,
I will answer your question, you have the right to ask. Knowing how my work has been treated in the past, I am not inclined to spend a lot of time.
But here are some sources:
Justin Martyr, The First Apology,
Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics
Yonge, C. D., trans., The Works of Philo, (this I have done an extensive research, and still digging in it and finding treasures. In a previous posting I wrote:In the foreword of The Works of Philo, David M. Scholer wrote, “Philo’s ideas about Logos-Wisdom are ... indispensable for New Testament studies ... most directly and dramatically in the interpretation of the Gospel of John ...�

Jerome, On Illustrious Men
Origen, Contra Celsum
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, article: Philo of Alexandria
Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Noss, John and Dave, A History of the World’s Religions
Diodorus of Sicily, Book I
Plato, The Republic
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament
Plato, Epinomis
Tertullian, Apologeticus
Plato, Timaeus,
Seneca, Epistles
Cicero, De Senectute
Case, Shirley Jackson, The Evolution of Early Christianity
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
Cicero, De Natura Deorum, I
Plato, Laws, Book XII
Plutarch, Moralia: How to Study Poetry
Plato, Symposium
Plato, Timaeus
Plutarch, Lives
Cartlidge, David R., and David Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels
There are more books I researched , from which I found a certain valuable information to add to the puzzle.

cass256

Don't worry, I don't even trust my own. it changes so often the more I read.
Well, That is what drives me crazy, but keeps me coming back. It is a jig saw puzzle. The problem is they took 6 puzzles and mixed the pieces together and then boxed 2/3 of it and sold it as a single. Not only are there pieces missing, but half of it doesn't fit, and not all from the same place. How am I supposed to fit the field of blood, wether Aramaic or not, into judas buying it on one hand, and him giving the money back to the temple and priests buying it, on the other? did his guts burst out when he fell into it? or did he simply hang himself after he bought it?
it just goes so far beyond the language behind the words, I don't know why I bother with any of it at all. I am playing with the pieces of the puzzle, and sometimes I even forget which puzzle I am working on. Ahough, I have to say it is frustrating, but never boring. I guess that is what draws me back... and the fact that it leads to all sorts of interesting side topics. I just need a lot of tylinol for the headaches.

spin

It doesn't matter. What matters is that they were indistinguishable after that time, read: they were seen as the one entity, hence terms such as Yahweh Elohim.


spin

spin

Normally when you give sources, you give exact citations. It would be nice if one supplies say Justin Martyr, one says the work and the location in the work in standard notion used for the work. This makes it possible for one to consult the sources. Without that information the list of sources has no functional value to the person one is supplying it to.


spin

spin

How did Strong's decide that a word was Chaldee (ie Aramaic), especially when Jn says that it was Hebrew?

As Strong's was only using the Textus Receptus, how could the work choose which form was closer to the original name, be it Bethesda, Bethsaida or Bethzatha or something else?


spin

cass256

I think what happens is that there are some who are here to fight the boredom and they take pleasure in getting a rise out of someone. If you have information post it. It is the silent majority who will benefit. The arguments are sometimes just for the sake of argument. You've studied a lot, and have a lot to offer from what I have read. The shame is seeing somone who has information to offer get discouraged and leave. No one is right 100% of the time, especially with the nature of what is being discussed.

I have a question on Psalm 22. I believe the word used as "pierced" is not an actual definition. i find it to mean to dig or bore. I may be wrong, but I think the "pierced" has been used to tie it to other "Pierced" prophecy related to Jesus. Psalm 22:16
Strong's says 3738 karah
kaw-raw'
a primitive root; properly, to dig; figuratively, to plot; generally, to bore or open:--dig, X make (a banquet), open.

I don't have the Hebrew characters.
I read a jewish study Bible and they say Maul, but I think that is because the subject is talking like being attacked by dogs. They also probably would not want to give Psalm 22 over to the Christians who want Jesus to be the god who was "pierced." Do you happen to have any other sources to define this word as "pierce?" Every other place I have found pierce in the KJV, so far, uses different words having "pierce" in the definition in Strongs.

I know it sounds like a minor difference, but at this point I am tired of reading and taking for granted things are prophecy fulfilled. I'd like to be a little harder to fool the second time around.

cass256

Actually, I am in the camp who sees El as being represented by the first creation story in Genesis telling man and woman they may eat any fruit they want.. (I am not believing in a literal creation as yet) YHWH was not spoken of until the second creation of Adam tale and presents the forbidden fruit.

I also read Exodus that YHWH told Moses that by his name YHWH he was not known by Abraham and jacob,. yet his name is planted all over the stories of Abraham dealing with his God, which in canaan was EL. Yahweh is said to tell moses he was only known to Abraham as El almighty.
I think it matters. YHWH directly lied to Moses, or some scribe went back and stuck his name in places it was not originally found.
Yahweh was stuck on a midian mountain, bored to tears and waiting to change his name from baal. then the story gets interesting. I am not saying the stories are real, but there are facts that are not facts. it matters. Abraham did not necessarily follow a god of blood and war. Too bad his descendants don't know it. It directly affects us today.

Chris Weimer

Sounds a tad complicated, putasne?