Steven Carr

You mean God the Son cannot forgive sins off his own bat?

Orthodox_Freethinker

For the sake of discussion, I am giving modern scholarship the benefit of the doubt on Markan priority. Matthean priority isn't worth arguing for, especially since there is still no proof that Q ever existed.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Forgiveness, by nature, requires sacrifice. For example, if someone badly wronged you, you'd have to sacrifice your pride in order to forgive him.

But in the case of Christ's death and resurrection, it was more to save us from death than it was about sacrifice, given that Jesus could already forgive sin before He died on the cross. But only God can forgive sins, so this authority could only come from being one with the Father.

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

I am of the school of thought that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Therefore, some meaning is lost from translating the Aramaic to the Greek to the English. I prefer Bibles that translate from the Aramaic Peshitta directly.
http://www.peshitta.netfirms.com/

Peace.

Toto

You are still appealling to the majority, without examining the basis for that majority opinion.

Please stop denying the obvious.

Most of the secular scholars have Christian roots and operate in largely Christian market places, so the fact that they come to the same conclusion is not indicative of very much.

Orthodox_Freethinker

The basis is actual scholarship instead of disdain for the Christian religion. The arguments against the Jesus Myth have already been presented in this thread.

Peace.

Chris Weimer

Stop right there. We've gone rounds and rounds over Aramaic v. Greek primacy, and before this thread can further you have the burden of proof to show your case.

SaintCog

OK, this is funny stuff. I just read the first few pages of this guy's free online book. He begins arguing for an Aramaic original with a passage from 1 Corinthians. I'm sorry, are you trying to tell us that Paul wrote a letter in Aramaic to a Gentile audience living in a Greek city?

Granted, you were saying that you believe the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic. Nevertheless, you cite as an authority someone who erroneously believes Paul wrote Aramaic to a Greek-speaking region of the World, to people who would have had no reason even to know what Aramaic is, let alone speak or be able to read it.

Besides, are you trying to tell us that Luke wrote an Aramaic gospel to a guy named "Theophilus"? Luke, the man you allege was a Gentile physician who accompanied Paul. Think about that for a while.

I would also note that the "scholar" who maintains the website that you provided us and who wrote the free online book arguing for the primacy of the Aramaic, acknowledges that the "Church Fathers" (he puts the term in scare quotes for some reason) mostly acknowledge that the gospels were originally written in Greek. Although, I imagine he wasn't including Papias in the mix. How does all this square with your high regard for the testimony of the Church Fathers?

Orthodox_Freethinker

Was the New Testament Really Originally Written in Greek?
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Wasth...ninGreek1b.pdf

Aramaic Peshitta Primacy For Dummies
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Peshi...es_FirstEd.pdf

Even if the original authographs were written in Greek, the Aranaic Peshitta should be more reliable in what Jesus actually spoke:

"Even if the Greek NT is the original and the Aramaic NT is a translation, what is the most important part of the whole Bible? Would you dare say it isn’t the very words of Jesus? Since, He is the central figure in the Bible, and many would believe so, let us assume that Yeshua’s words are the most important part of the Bible. Now, what language did He speak? Aramaic. So even IF the Greek NT is the original, the most important bits are still only translations (which as we have seen with the many Peshitta proofs, result in many problems with the Greek NT), or at best, transliterations.

Now with the Aramaic Peshitta, we often see that Yeshua’s words are filled with Semitic poetry, Aramaic idiom etc. Are Greek primacists impressed? No, because Jesus spoke Aramaic anyway. But what does this imply? That the Peshitta contains the original words of Jesus, whether it is the original NT or a translation of the Greek NT! Whether or not the Peshitta NT is the original, in the most important sections, the words of Yeshua, it is superior to the Greek NT, whether or not the Greek is the original. While the Aramaic Peshitta preserves the original teachings of Yeshua, the Greek NT must make do with translations and transliterations.

From this of course, you can branch off, with more ideas that scream “Peshitta primacy�. What would happen if you wrote some poetry in English, translated it into Swahili, and then had an expert translate that into English, without the help of the source text? Would it retain its poetry and even idiom? Unlikely. So why does the Aramaic Peshitta NT preserve the poetry and idiom of Yeshua’s teachings? Does it make use of a source text that has the original sayings of Yeshua? If so, this makes the Peshitta superior to the Greek which is filled with translations of Yeshua’s words. What is this source? Could the Peshitta be its own source, the original? Either way, Peshitta primacists can take comfort in the fact that even if the Peshitta is in the main part, a translation from the Greek NT, it is still superior due to having the original words, in the original language of the central figure in Christianity, Yeshua.

As a side note, what applied here to Yeshua can also be applied to other Aramaic-speaking New Testament figures such as Peter, James and Stephen. Keep applying the above principles to all those in the NT who spoke Aramaic (i.e. all, Aramaic being the common language of the Semitic peoples) and you may even garner the “crazy� notion that the entire NT was originally penned in the language of the Messiah and His people.

Maybe Christians would have a better understanding of the Bible, if they studied the original teachings of Jesus, rather than a Greek copy of His teachings."
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Onlin...unoriginal.htm

Peace.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Though I believe that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic, the concept of Aramaic primacy is mostly relevant in discerning the actual words of Christ. I am sorry if I led us on a tangent with a claim to Aramaic primacy in the Pauline Epistles. Though it is possible that Paul wrote in Aramaic, it is not pertinent for this discussion.

Peace.