On September 18th, 2015, Dr Justin Bass and Dr Bart Ehrman engaged in a debate on the topic, “Did the historical Jesus claim to be divine?” The debate took place at Collin College in Frisco, Texas.
Ehrman won. It’s as simple as that. Ehrman convincingly showed that Jesus made no claim to being divine in any manner in his historical ministry. Muslims should view it who are interested to debate Christians on this subject .
Categories: Biblical scholarship, Christianity, Islam
Blogging Theology 
May be Bart Ehrman was bribed by Prophet Mohammed thousands of years ago to become a Christian scholar to say “Jesus never said he is God” because it is in the Quran that “Jesus never said he is God”.
I hope Robert Wells have watched this video. I said Jesus never said he is God but Robert denied that. Robert what do you say about this? This was my argument to you even though I am not an NT scholar but an NT scholar sided with me. The NT is not properly documented with regards to the details of the writers and how they came with the documents. It is unacceptable.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jesus said He is God in many ways:
Mark 14:6-64
to the high priest, “I am”, etc.
reaction of the Jews proves it.
“Before Abraham was born, I am.” (see John 8:56-58)
When He said “I am”, He was claiming to be Yahweh. (from Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10-13, Isaiah 44:6.
When Jesus responded to Thomas in John 20:29, because of verse 28, Thomas said, “My Lord and My God!” – Jesus said that Thomas “believed” because He saw Him.
Jesus said,
I am the light of the world. (John 8:12)
noor
نور
God is light – 1 John 1:5
Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped, so He was claiming to be God.
LikeLike
“If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father” – John 14:9
Matthew 14:33 – they worshipped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son”
Mark 2:7 – Jesus forgave sins, “who can forgive sins except God alone?”
Mark 2:28 – “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” = Yahweh of the Sabbath Day – creator – Sabbath Day – Genesis 1-2, ten commandments, etc.
LikeLike
The ‘I am’ in Mark 14:60-64 simply means ‘yes’. Look at Matthew’s parallel passage 26:64.
Citing Jesus in John will not do, as there are compelling reasons for thinking Jesus said few of the words attributed to him in that gospel. Even the most conservative evangelical scholars admit this: FF Bruce and Richard Baukham to name just two of many.
LikeLike
Mark 14:60-64
LikeLike
Mark 2:7 – Jesus forgave sins, “who can forgive sins except God alone?”
Said the enemies of Jesus – whom you side with – lol. The pious Jews however correctly understood Jesus when they praised God for giving such authority to a human being.
I forgive sins all the time – don’t you Ken?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark 2:28 – “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” etc
in Aramaic its has a different meaning = human beings are lord of the sabat.
Then he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; so the son of man is lord even of the sabbath.’
LikeLike
Matthew 14:33 – they worshipped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son”
So he was not God – but God’s son. You have just refuted yourself Ken!
LikeLike
‘Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped, so He was claiming to be God’
This can be explained most likely as Matthean redaction (so most scholars). Also, Daniel is described in similar terms. He was not a god.
LikeLike
no; the gospel according to John counts – they are the words of Jesus recorded by an eyewitness, the apostle John.
Also, Matthew was another eyewitness also.
And those disciples, the Qur’an says, were good and believers and full of integrity.
Mark 2:7 still stands as claim to be God. (as Surah 3:135 says – who can forgive sins but God alone?)
Mark 14:60-64 still stands as Jesus agreeing that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one (ie, Son of God)
Matthew 14:33 means they worshiped Him and only God is worthy is worship. Son of God means the same nature as God the Father, ie, God the Son, God in the flesh.
LikeLike
like I said Ken even your own scholars disagree with you.
OUCH!!
LikeLike
Mark 2:28 – means He is God the creator of Genesis 1-2; creator of the Sabbath Day. God the Son, the creator, with the Father. like John 1:3 “through Him all things came into being.”
LikeLike
“Mark 2:7 still stands as claim to be God. (as Surah 3:135 says – who can forgive sins but God alone?)”
I forgive sins all the time – don’t you Ken? Or have you never forgiven someone their sin?
LikeLike
The Qur’an says the text of the Gospel was never corrupted. (Surah 5:47; 68; 10:94)
Ouch !!
The Qur’an says the disciples of Jesus were believers, trustworthy, and became the uppermost and victorious, till the day of resurrection. ( Surah 3:55; 61:14)
Ouch !!
LikeLike
‘Son of God means the same nature as God the Father, ie, God the Son, God in the flesh.’
Oh yes you’re quite correct Ken.
Silly me.
Luke 3:38: ‘the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.’
Adam = God
LikeLike
You can only forgive sins committed against you; but you cannot forgive the legal guilt of them that God has in His accounting that will have to be accounted for on the day of judgement – the guilt of sin that sends people to hell. You cannot forgive in that way.
Mark 2:7 and Surah 3:135 are taking about THAT kind of forgiveness of sins. You cannot do that.
LikeLike
Matthew 9:8 (ESV)
8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
LikeLike
Luke 3 does not have “son” – only “of” – does not mean “same nature”
τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ
“the one of Enosh, the one of Seth, the one of Adam, the one of God”
Study your Greek again.
LikeLike
Jesus was a man also, so you haven’t proven anything.
Also, that was the crowd’s perception of what is going on,the crowds didn’t know Jesus was “the God-man”, “God in the flesh”, “God incarnate”
LikeLike
the pious Jews were right, the enemies of Jesus got it wrong – and Matthew obviously agreed with the crowd too. And it proves that there is an alternative to your theology: namely God gives authority to people to do things. The Catholic church understands this point which is why it claims to have authority from God to forgive sins.
LikeLike
Ken ALL modern translations of Luke 3 disagree with your translation. OUCH!
The KJV proves you wrong too! OUCH!!
look for yourself and weap
http://biblehub.com/luke/3-38.htm
LikeLike
Obviously Luke 3:38 does not mean that Adam is God.
Ouch !!
It is your problem and your responsibility to prove that “Son of God” about Jesus is the same as “of God” about Adam. They are obviously different based on context and language.
LikeLike
obviously? But both Adam and Jesus are called ‘son of God’ in the Bible.
You claimed quite wrongly that ‘Son of God means the same nature as God the Father, ie, God the Son, God in the flesh.’
Obviously it does not. David was called ‘son of God’ by God. Adam is called ‘son of God’. Jesus is called ‘son of God’
‘blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called….’
fill in the missing words Ken.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Jesus was a man also, so you haven’t proven anything.
Also, that was the crowd’s perception of what is going on,the crowds didn’t know Jesus was “the God-man”, “God in the flesh”, “God incarnate”
I say;
This is bully by Christians i.e. Trinitarians. How can an entity be God and Man at the same time. It is impossible. He used his God part to raise the dead on earth, forgive sins on earth, walk on water on earth etc. but could not use his God part to tell us the end date on earth? Where is the divine part then, that did all these things as divine on earth?
P
No, wonder Emperor Haile Selaissie and Sai Baba and so many people are God men. There is nothing in the Bible that “limit God-Men to 1” or “Trinity to 1” but God has clearly limited Himself to one and not me but God.
Proof
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
Ken, where is your proof as clear as above where Yahweh said
I Yahweh I am
-3 persons in 1 God
-God-Man and none else
-Trinity and none else
-3 distinct persons and none else
-hypostatic union and none else
-God the Son and none else etc.
I am happy give you more proof like this
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
My dear Ken, Salvation involves burning fire and listen to what God Himself said and categorically drop what men said. It is clear in the Bible, that God is not a man, does not change, does not die, cannot be created or generated because He is eternal but you ignore all these clear message and being stubborn, but excuse me my friend for that word stubborn but that is what Christians are. I am just amazed for this clear message and truth but people will not heed.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Qur’an says the disciples of Jesus were believers, trustworthy, and became the uppermost and victorious, till the day of resurrection. ( Surah 3:55; 61:14)
Ouch !!
I say;
Ken Temple, the Quran always refers to Christiana as the people of the book. It never refer to Christians as those who follow Jesus in submission to Allah Alone. So the verse is not talking about Christians but those who follow Jesus in submission to Allah alone. Obviously it is not referring to Christians here because it warns Christians not to say 3 and they should desist, it is better for them. It also warn Christians to stop worshiping a man or Jesus so the verse is not for Christians but to the early followers of Jesus who are not called Christians then. Jesus and his disciples never called themselves Christians and did not worship 3 persons 1 God, so the verse is referring to them not modern day Christians. Do you submit to Allah alone? No. So the verse is not for you Sir.
Sahih International
Quran 3:55
[Mention] when Allah said, “O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ
Once again, here the Quran did not refer to the people of the Book(Christians) but the early supporters of Jesus who were not called Christians then. The councils were not formed to define Trinity and Jesus was not dead yet. So, there is not Christianity because Jesus was not dead yet to save their sins. That is when the story is told to our prophet by God. Around that time we know there were followers of Jesus who did not believe he was God and they were dominant till Christianity start to spread later and we knew about Arians, Ebionites etc. to prove their dominant against the Children of Israel. The Quran said they will be dominant among the Children of Israel, but did not mention Pagan Romans, Greek, etc. Pagan Roman and Greek adopted Christianity and added their paganism in it and became dominant. That is not what the Quran is talking about. Later the Roman and Greek Christianity persecuted the Arians and Ebionite because the Quran only referred to the dominance on the factions of Children of Israel and never mentioned Christianity domination by Greek and Romans, so that is not the domination it is talking about
61:14
Sahih International
O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, “Who are my supporters for Allah ?” The disciples said, “We are supporters of Allah .” And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple, you are going round and round in a circle. Looks like a vicious circle to me.
Just out of interest – do you believe “Jesus” still is “man”, still possesses his assumed human nature, or not?
LikeLike
In order to understand Luke 3:38, “Adam, of God”, interpreted as “son of God”, you have to go all the way back to verse 23.
You also need to notice that the word son “hios” / υἱός is not used at all from 3:23-38 except for the phrase, “being supposedly the son of Joseph”. Luke is clearly saying that Jesus was not the literal son of Joseph, because Luke has already clearly taught the virginal conception of Jesus in Luke 1:26-35.
3:23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ
And He Himself Jesus, was about thirty years old, when He began, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the one of Eli, (του ‘Ηλι )
the word “son” hios / υἱός, is only used in that phrase “supposedly the son of Joseph”. After that, all the way through to “Adam, of God” it is open with the Greek definite article, “the one of” or “the one from”.
Luke 3:24 –
τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ
the of Matthat, the of Levi, the of Melchi, the of Jannai, the of Joseph,
And it goes on like that all the way to “Adam, of God” in verse 38.
Obviously, Luke is saying that God created Adam, but the rest of the genealogy, by using the Greek article open technique of “the one of” or “the one from”, leaves it open for “son of” or “son in law” or “grandson” or “from” (generally speaking).
This all makes perfect sense, because Luke is showing Jesus’ genealogy from Mary, whereas Matthew shows Joseph’s physical line.
“son of” can mean other things, but in Jesus’ case, as in Luke 1:34-35, it shows that the meaning is “of the same nature” – since Jesus had no human father (which Islam agrees with us on), and the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High provided the Divine nature, the united with the human nature in the womb of Mary.
Eli was the father of Mary, that is why “of Eli” is open, as Jesus, “being as was supposed, the son of Joseph” is a parenthetical comment.
Luke is showing the humanity of Jesus, through the virgin Mary’s line, that ties all the way back to Adam, showing Jesus’ connection with all of humanity and His love for all of humanity; and His plan to redeem people from every nation and ethnicity and language and tribe and culture – Revelation 5:9; 7:9.
Luke 1:34-35 is key – showing that “for this reason” the holy offspring will be called the Son of God – because His divine nature was from the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High.
Nothing physical or sexual was done.
LikeLike
Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He was killed in, but it is a glorified body.
Jesus will return someday in the future in the same glorified resurrection body (Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:43-53; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 1:4-10)
So, Jesus still has His human nature and body, although it is glorified and perfected; along with His Divine Nature. He is fully God and fully man.
LikeLike
Ken thanks for the answer. As far as I know, that’s the orthodox position – He is fully God and fully man.
Recently I met members of two different free Churches, who deny this according to “biblical evidence” in their view. What is ironic, they argue in the same way as you do, they declare to be “Trinitarians”, but de facto worship a completely different God.
LikeLike
The disciples of Jesus were the first Christians. They were Jewish Christians. The Qur’an says that Jesus’ disciples will be victorious and uppermost and evident/obvious. (Surah 3:55; 61:14)
Peter himself, Jewish believer in Jesus, affirms the word ‘Christian” for the believers who suffered persecution in the first century. ( 1 Peter 4:16).
Acts 11:26 – the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. The famous church of St. Peter is in Antioch today. (today called Antakya, Turkey, near Syria)
The word Christian was long before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, etc.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The disciples of Jesus were the first Christians. They were Jewish Christians. The Qur’an says that Jesus’ disciples will be victorious and uppermost and evident/obvious. (Surah 3:55; 61:14)
Peter himself, Jewish believer in Jesus, affirms the word ‘Christian” for the believers who suffered persecution in the first century. ( 1 Peter 4:16).
Acts 11:26 – the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. The famous church of St. Peter is in Antioch today. (today called Antakya, Turkey, near Syria)
The word Christian was long before the council of Nicea in 325 AD, etc.
I say;
But the NT is not properly documented. The document of NT is not a properly documented document to be authentic and verifiable who the disciples of Jesus is. I keep stressing that, the NT is supposed to be an important document for all mankind and so the writers must not joke with us, they must be serious and properly document it with their full names in Aramaic. They are not Greek of course and Pete, Mark, Mathew, John are all Greek names and Jesus was written in Greek. Ok. a properly documented document must contain the full name, the place the person comes from, who the person is, how he came by the document i.e. by inspiration, recitation, from God, angel, by himself etc. the year and the date (optional), If he is an eye witness, must state it clearly as he is eye witness and his writing must be first person like “I went with Jesus to the temple” I witnessed ghosts coming out from their graves and visited relatives in Jerusalem”, ” I ordered my document to be converted from Aramaic to Greek” etc.
Ken, I am by no means setting standards but that is how it should be considering the fact that Quran claimed it is from God and it is called Quran(recitation) to be recited in memory and the angel Gabriel comes often to repeat the whole Quran to our prophet who also repeat the whole Quran more often to his disciples and his disciples to their disciples in memory and written over and over and it still goes on today. This is a good authentic preservation of the word of God.
Yes, God did not bother to keep the early scriptures because they are for Jews and Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, so the scripture was designed for them at that time but the final revelation which is the Quran must be preserved at all cost, hence the practice written and of memorization as the Quran means but not kitaab(book) alone. The Quran is both book and memorization in order to preserve it.
So, if the Quran said the followers of Jesus during Jesus time as the verses indicates, it means the children of Israel who are his disciples and not Paul of Tarsus who is obviously not his disciples but saw him in vision.
Ken, those early disciples never knew Jesus is to die for their sins because they will not have run away and leave him(Jesus) to be crucified, if they new he(Jesus) death will save them from their sins, they would have preferred to go with him. Secondly, they were surprised about the resurrection. If they knew all these things they would not have been surprised. They should have been happy and merry making because their saviour has done what he told them died for their sins, but they were no any cerebration then.
So the disciples did not know he will die for their sins. The Quran said they worship Allah alone and there is no name(disciple) in Aramaic that said that name in Aramaic, he worshiped 3 persons 1, Trinity, God-Man, God staying in the womb of Mary for 9 months, 3 distinct persons, Triune, hypostatic union, etc. All these were later addition to the religion of Jesus by Pagan Romans and Greeks to add the Sun God concept generating rays and was born on the 25 of December and those Greek and Roman Christians who were powerful is not what God is talking with regards to the verses you like quoting.
The Quran absolutely condemn the Christians(people of the book) as it refers them to stop saying 3, and stop worshiping Jesus son of Mary and a man, a changed God etc. so the verse is not for modern day Christians like you but for the followers and disciple of Jesus among the factions of Childrem of Israel as the verse said but not children of Greek or Romans. Paul of Tarsus was not his follower so he is excluded but later said he saw him in vision. He could be lying anyway or saw an evil spirit to deceive him because that evil spirit was able to steal Gods attributes when He emptied Himself and enter into man. God might have kept His attributes in a cave like how snake empties himself from his scales and leave it somewhere.
Why did God allow wrong religion to be dominant? having power to persecute others in the eyes of God is not domination and God always allow that because of the free will and test for human beings. The so called wrong religious domination was there at Jesus time when the Romans and Greek which are wrong are dominant over Jews and Judaism which are right.
600 years? God allowed idol worshiping for so many years before prophet Abraham arose from the idol worshipers and corrected them, so that “why God must allow Christianity for 600 years to arise another prophet” by Dr. James White is not a philosophical argument. He must ask why did God allow idol worshiping for so many years before Abraham, Why must God allow Pagan and Greek idol worship before Jesus? why were the Greeks and Roman stronger thant the God rearing and God worshiping Jews? the Dr. must ask and stop worrying us with this unphilosophical argument.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The NT is fully documented. The early church quoted and alluded to them and confirmed them. The Didache (dated 70-120 AD) quotes Matthew 28:19. Clement of Rome (96 AD) mentions Paul letter to the Corinthians. Ignatius (110 AD), Polycarp (155 AD) uses some of NT; Justin Martyr (165 AD) speaks of the “memoirs of the apostles” (4 gospels); Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), Ireneaus (180-200 AD) and Tertullian (180-220 AD) quote and use and allude most every book of the NT. Origen (250 AD) affirms all 27 books of the NT, he just doesn’t know who wrote Hebrews. (250 AD) Tertullian said Barnabas wrote Hebrews, which I agree with.
So those early church fathers and writers are like the isnad chains of documentation that Islam has about Hadiths, etc.
The main questions that liberal scholars have are about 2 Peter (that Paul B. Williams likes to bring up all the time) and the Pastoral Epistles, but there are good conservative answers for those also, that show they are also first century – 2 Peter and the Pastoral epistles were written by 67 AD.
Matthew (Matteo) and John (Yohannan) are Hebrew names. Peter is the Greek translation of Cephas and Mark is Greek, his name was “John Mark”. Paul is the Greek name for the Hebrew Saul for the apostle Paul/ Saul of Tarsus.
The Jews of Palestine had been conquered by the Greeks (Alexander the Macedonian – 330 BC onward) for over 300 years and they fully used Greek as the linqua franca = “the language of commerce” by that time. Many of the Jews could speak and write Greek. See the article below. The Romans had conquered the Jews of Palestine and spoke Latin, but they had to speak Greek with the Jews. Greek was their second language. see below.
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
LikeLike
So when was 2 Peter first mentioned?
LikeLike
The Epistle of Barnabas ( written between 70 AD – 135 AD), seems to be the first quote/allusion to 2 Peter. (Epistle of Barnabas, 15:4)
It was obviously not written by the disciple and fellow missionary with Paul, Barnabas, but that is what it was known as.
Origen clearly refers to 2 Peter. (around 250 AD) and Origen lists all of the 27 NT books before the famous list of Athanasius in 367 AD.
“But, is Athanasius really the first complete New Testament list? Despite the repeated claims that he is, we have a list by Origen more than a century earlier (c.250), that seems to include all 27 books. Origen, in his Homilies on Joshua, writes:
So too our Lord Jesus Christ…sent his apostles as priests carrying well-wrought trumpets. First Matthew sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel, Mark also, and Luke, and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds with the two trumpets of his Epistles; James also and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his Epistles [and Apocalypse]; and Luke while describing the deeds of the apostles. Latest of all, moreover, that one comes who said, “I think that God has set us forth as the apostles last of all” (1 Cor 4:9), and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles he threw down, even to their very foundations, the wall of Jericho, that is to say, all the instruments of idolatry and the dogmas of the philosophers.[1]”
footnote 1 = Hom. Josh. 7.1, as cited in Metzger, The New Testament Canon, 139.
Michael J. Kruger (bolding emphasis mine)
http://michaeljkruger.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-10-athanasius-festal-letter-367-a-d-is-the-first-complete-list-of-new-testament-books/
see also here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/twenty-seven-book-new-testament-before.html
LikeLike
What exactly is the alleged citation of 2 Peter in the Epistle of Barnabas?
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Jews of Palestine had been conquered by the Greeks (Alexander the Macedonian – 330 BC onward) for over 300 years and they fully used Greek as the linqua franca = “the language of commerce” by that time. Many of the Jews could speak and write Greek. See the article below. The Romans had conquered the Jews of Palestine and spoke Latin, but they had to speak Greek with the Jews. Greek was their second language. see below.
I say;
Did Jesus speak Greek? and not Aramaic? Did Jesus and his disciples spoke and Greek? and changed their Aramaic names to Greek names?
Every scholar said Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic and not Greek. When Jesus was on the cross he cried Eli or Illahi or Allaha which is Aramaic but not theos which is Greek.
You said;
Matthew (Matteo) and John (Yohannan) are Hebrew names. Peter is the Greek translation of Cephas and Mark is Greek, his name was “John Mark”. Paul is the Greek name for the Hebrew Saul for the apostle Paul/ Saul of Tarsus.
I say;
I do not think Matteo who is not Mathew at all will use different name to write a Gospel of God without full name and proper documentation and call it just according to Mathew which is not his name.
Hebrews/Aramaic/Arabic has witness a lot of colonization by Roman, Greek, French, Italy, English etc. but they never changed their native names to any language and they retain their original language and write and communicate in it.
To tell me that Yohannan has changed his name to John which is not his name to write a document NT and want me to believe that document is beyond me.
Thanks.
LikeLike
2 Peter 3:8
You can see the Epistle of Barnabas 15:4 at http://www.ccel.org
under church fathers, etc.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.xv.html
LikeLike
Of course Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, but they also spoke Greek. (Like Azeri Turks in the Azerbaijan state in N. Iran speak Azeri Turkish in home and neighborhhood, but Farsi in School and greater public. Tajiks and Uzbeks speak Tajiki and Uzbek in home, but Russian in school; Kurds speak Kurdish in homes, but Turkish in public. (in Turkey); in Iraq, Kurds can speak Kurdish and Arabic, etc.
LikeLike
Yohannan did not change his name. John is just the English / Anglicized form of Yohanna or Yohannan, (Hebrew) to Greek ιωαννης to English John / German Jan or Jochen, etc.
Like Jehovah is the Anglicized / English form of Yahweh.
Like Americans cannot say Khomeni or Khamene’i – they say Hameni or Kameni.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Of course Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, but they also spoke Greek. (Like Azeri Turks in the Azerbaijan state in N. Iran speak Azeri Turkish in home and neighborhhood, but Farsi in School and greater public. Tajiks and Uzbeks speak Tajiki and Uzbek in home, but Russian in school; Kurds speak Kurdish in homes, but Turkish in public. (in Turkey); in Iraq, Kurds can speak Kurdish and Arabic, etc.
I say;
Where is your proof that Jesus spoke Greek? and wrote anything in Greek? Where is your proof that, Jesus disciples wrote Greek, or spoke Greek with evidence in well documented document with their full names, the place the came from, their relationship with Jesus, their place of birth(optional), the date(optional), their occupation(optional).
Scholars said clearly that, Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, and it is a spoken and written language at that time and Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic speakers had a lot of colonizers like Romans, Greeks, French, Italy etc. and still retain their original languages and write their documents in their languages. There are a lot of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic documents. If they had stuck to communicating and writing in Greek, you would not have found their ancient writings even though they were under colonization.
You said;
Yohannan did not change his name. John is just the English / Anglicized form of Yohanna or Yohannan, (Hebrew) to Greek ιωαννης to English John / German Jan or Jochen, etc.
Like Jehovah is the Anglicized / English form of Yahweh.
Like Americans cannot say Khomeni or Khamene’i – they say Hameni or Kameni.
I say;
Give me a document that Yohannan wrote with his full name and the place he came from in his native language because his native language was spoken and written at his time.
Khomeini will not write an important document in English and call himself Hameni or Kameni
Uzbeks will not write the religious documents in Russian. It can be translated to Russian anyway. But the initial message will be in their written and spoken language.
Right now in Africa, even though most people speak, English, French, Portuguese etc. as their colonized languages, any important document that has to do with religion or African traditional religion is first written in their mother language and preached in their mother language for easy local understanding before later translated into any language if they so wish.
When there is any important gathering and right now in Africa, the native language is preferred and spoken than any colonized language, even though the colonized language is the officially written language it is not preferred when it comes to local and religious matters because even though the colonized language was there centuries upon centuries, people still understand their local languages better than the colonized language which was forced on them by their colonizers. I am not English but learnt English from grade 1 to university level but still comfortable with my local language than English and prefer to speak and write it than English.
It is obvious that there was the gospels in Aramaic because the local people understand Aramaic well than Greek and will prefer their local language than the Greek. Jesus want his local people to understand his message first before Greek and it will surprise you at that time you will find some people do not knows and speak Greek but Aramaic alone and it will not be good to write the gospel in Greek to alienate them(Aramaic speaking)
Go to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Turkey, Korea, China, Africa, Japan etc. and you will find so many natives who speak and understand only their native languages alone but not any colonized language.
In Jesus time, even thought they might be under Greek or Roman rule, but not every local speak Greek or Latin but Aramaic or Hebrew. If you go to Israel right now, some of them do not speak English well even though English is their official language for a long time.
English, French and Italy was the official language of most Arab lands and they use them officially but their local spoken and written languages remain intact to this day and their local and religious documents are written in Arabic but not French, English or Italian.
JESUS WILL COMMUNICATE IN BOTH WRITTEN AND SPOKEN IN ARAMAIC TO HIS PEOPLE BUT NOT GREEK. It makes sense.
We need the gospel of Jesus in Aramaic not Greek that was forced on his people and it is not everyone at his(Jesus time) that understands Greek but obviously they understand Aramaic their mother language.
It is so today, when you visit any local community, you will find so many locals who do not speak, understand, or write in their colonized language but only their local language which they must.
Thanks.
LikeLike
So, why does the Qur’an use Greek words for the NT – Injeel انجیل comes from euangelion / ευαγγελιον – ?
If Jesus had been sent to the people in Israel in his/their own language, then it would have been Aramaic, and his message would also have had an Aramaic name, just as the Aramaic translation of the New Testament (the Peshitta) uses the term “ha-bishara” (the good news) for the Greek Ευαγγελιον.
If Jesus’ book/message and its title had originally been in Aramaic, then the author of the Qur’an would have referred to it using either its Aramaic title, or an Arabic translation of the meaning of that title, but certainly not by using a transliteration of a Greek term. In fact, the Arabic al-bishara البشاره is nearly identical to the Aramaic name. The use of the Greek title is an indirect confirmation that the book itself was originally in Greek, i.e. that this name is its original and authentic title.
Ouch !!
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Not so fast my dear friend. God bless you. I sincerely respect you. We are all learning.
Aramaic.
ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ (awongaleeyoon)[2] which means “good news” or ,” or He Reveals.”
According the my research, the Greek word for the NT must have been derived from the Aramaic itself as stated above. The Aramaic and Greek names for the NT is identical as can be seen above.
Source of my research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam
It makes sense, because in Jesus time there were no Greeks but Romans and the Roman soldiers matched Jesus to kill him but not Greek soldiers, so if anything Latin would have been the colonized language in Palestine at that time but not Greek.
So, it is the Greek that derived the NT name from the original Aramaic;
ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ (awongaleeyoon)[2] which means “good news” or ,” or He Reveals.”
There were Arab Christians when the Quran was revealed, so the Quran is making it clear to them, if they thought there is a message from Jesus called injeel or whatever, then it is God who gave Jesus that injeel or gospel or good news but not to Mark, Mathew, Luke, John, Paul of Tarsus etc. which are gospels.
It is easier and simple to stress on what people already know than “ha-bishara” which they do not know and use. It is not taking anything from Greek to confirm current NT, but to clearly recognise to the people at that time that anything they attribute to Jesus was from or came from God and the Quran clearly said and corrected them, that, that injeel or whatever book or writings called injeel by the Arabs was given to Jesus Christ himself by Allah. It means not to Mark, John, Paul, Mathew, Luke and the rest.
Aramaic is first, Roman’s Latin is second language before the Greek took over, so the Greek transliterated the original Aramaic
(awongaleeyoon)[2] which means “good news” or ,” or He Reveals.”
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
This is what a Trinitarian(believer like you Ken) researcher writes about the injil or injeel or awongaleeyon or euangelion and Allah or Allaha, Eashoa Msheekha etc.
Evangelion comes from the Aramaic word meaning ‘He reveals’ (Hao-ga-leon.) In Greek it has been transliterated as ‘εὐαγγέλιον’ and pronounced as ‘evangelion.’ This word has also been translated into Latin and all the Western languages as ‘Evangelion’ with the explanation that it means ‘Good News.’ But in the original Ancient Aramaic, it really means: ‘He reveals’; that is ‘Maryah Reveals.’ How can someone preach about the Faith in Maran Eashoa Msheekha (Jesus the Messiah) when they do not know the truth or the basis for the Scriptures as preached by Maran Eashoa Msheekha?
Source:
http://v-a.com/
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
A Trinitarian historian and researcher, said the first followers of Jesus were not called Christians but called “the followers of Jesus”. That is who the Quran is talking about.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/vic_alexander_on_cnn_after_jesus_first_christians.html
A Trinitarian believes, the Greek New Testament is not the original Gospel of Jesus but original should come from Jesus’s own mouth-Language-Aramaic.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/aramaic_new_testament_trailer.html
The same Trinitarian is genuine and is defending Trinitarianism and Christianity who questioned resurrection.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/cnn_after_jesus_2nd_commentary.html
THERE WAS NO CHRISTIANITY BUT FOLLOWERS OF JESUS DURING JESUS TIME. The Quran said the followers of Jesus will become uppermost but not Christians-the people of the book.
Thanks.
LikeLike
So, it is the Greek that derived the NT name from the original Aramaic;
ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ (awongaleeyoon)[2] which means “good news” or ,” or He Reveals.”
That is the Syriac Aramaic, not Palestinian Aramaic, which was closer to Hebrew. the word in Aramaic was Beshara, like the Arabic, Al-Beshara
You have it backwards. The Injeel was written in Greek, and later when the Syrians became Christianized, which later produced one of the first translations of the OT from Hebrew to Syriac, and the NT from Greek into Syriac, called the Peshitta. (second century AD)
So later, Syriac Aramaic adopted the word “ewangelyoon” from Greek. That is probably how the Qur’an got it, from Syriac, as has been shown by other words also.
If Jesus had been sent to the people in Israel in his/their own language, then it would have been Aramaic, and his message would also have had an Aramaic name, just as the Aramaic translation of the New Testament (the Peshitta) uses the term “ha-bishara” (the good news) for the Greek Ευαγγελιον.
If Jesus’ book/message and its title had originally been in Aramaic, then the author of the Qur’an would have referred to it using either its Aramaic title, or an Arabic translation of the meaning of that title, but certainly not by using a transliteration of a Greek term. In fact, the Arabic al-bishara البشاره is nearly identical to the Aramaic name. The use of the Greek title is an indirect confirmation that the book itself was originally in Greek, i.e. that this name is its original and authentic title.
LikeLike
The Hebrew for “good news” is Basar בשר , cognate with the Aramaic and Arabic, بشر / بشاره .
This was translated centuries before Christ (200 BC) as the verbal form of “euangelion” in Isaiah 40:9, for example.
So, the Greek word euangelion is not based on a Aramaic word, “He reveals”; rather the Greek word is “eu” = good and “angel” (news), from which we get angel – messenger and apostle from.
Isaiah 40:9
Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of good news,
Lift up your voice mightily,
O Jerusalem, bearer of good news;
Lift it up, do not fear.
Say to the cities of Judah,
“Here is your God!”
עַל הַר־גָּבֹהַ עֲלִי־לָךְ מְבַשֶּׂרֶת צִיֹּון הָרִימִי בַכֹּחַ קֹולֵךְ מְבַשֶּׂרֶת יְרוּשָׁלִָם הָרִימִי אַל־תִּירָאִי אִמְרִי לְעָרֵי יְהוּדָה הִנֵּה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃
you can see the root form here from בשר
מְבַשֶּׂרֶת = “the one bringing good news”
LXX – Septuagint – Greek translation of OT – from around 300-200 BC:
ἐπ᾽ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σιων ὕψωσον τῇ ἰσχύι τὴν φωνήν σου ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Ιερουσαλημ ὑψώσατε μὴ φοβεῖσθε εἰπὸν ταῖς πόλεσιν Ιουδα ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν
So, the Greek word for “good news” (euangelion) is not from Aramaic “he reveals”.
LikeLike
The Jewish followers of Jesus believed the same things as the Hellenistic Jews (Stephen onward) and Saul, also a Jew. Peter, John, Matthew, James (several are named James, both brother of John (killed by Herod Agrippa I, in Acts 12:1-2) and half-brother of Jesus and writer of letter of James, one of the leaders in Acts 15).
The Hellenistic Jews and the Gentiles (Greeks, Romans, other non-Jews) were called Christians in Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and I Peter 4:16.
Peter and Paul and John and James were totally unified in their message – Galatians 2:7-9
Acts 15
LikeLike
apostle comes from apostolos αποστολος and apostello αποστελλω. I didn’t mean to say the word apostle comes from angelos. The concept of “messanger” is sometimes translated as “apostle” (one who is sent with a message).
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
If Jesus’ book/message and its title had originally been in Aramaic, then the author of the Qur’an would have referred to it using either its Aramaic title, or an Arabic translation of the meaning of that title, but certainly not by using a transliteration of a Greek term. In fact, the Arabic al-bishara البشاره is nearly identical to the Aramaic name. The use of the Greek title is an indirect confirmation that the book itself was originally in Greek, i.e. that this name is its original and authentic title.
I say;
I gave you the evidence and links that is a research site that publish such information for anyone in this world to view that said Palestinian Aramaic, during Jesus time uses ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ (awongaleeyoon)[2] which means “good news” or ,” or He Reveals.” . It is not Syriac or modern day Aramaic but the Aramaic of Jesus time.
I also supported my argument by giving you a genuine Christian Trinitarian researcher and historian who started his research in the 70s in caves and learning ancient Aramaic who also said the Greek did copy and transliterated the original(Jesus’s time) Aramaic awongaleeyoon which does not even means good news but “He reveals” in Ancient Aramaic.
You did not give any evidence with a research that said the ancient Aramaic copied from Greek. You have to give evidence that awongaleeyoon is not ancient Aramaic.
Ken, just scroll up this thread and you will realize your contradiction and change of argument, typical of you and Christians for keep changing positions. This is what you said earlier.
//////////////////////////////
“If Jesus had been sent to the people in Israel in his/their own language, then it would have been Aramaic, and his message would also have had an Aramaic name, just as the Aramaic translation of the New Testament (the Peshitta) uses the term “ha-bishara” (the good news) for the Greek Ευαγγελιον.”
/////////////////////////////
You said the Aramaic uses “ha bishara” (the good news) for the Greek Ευαγγελιον.”.
You never mentioned the real ancient Aramaic awongaleeyoon. I did my research and alerted you that is was the original word for the message of God given to Jesus Christ by God and it means “He reveals”. Now, you do not want to accept defeat, but to change your position and said it is the other way round without given proof.
Just type awongaleeyoon on google search and it will reveal ancient Aramaic that means “He Reveals” i.e. revelation and it sounds genuine than the “good news”. If awongaleeyoon in Aramaic means “He reveals”, the modern day Aramaic cannot change the name to “good news” and which means they would have violated the Greek “good news”
How can you copy and transliterate something that means “good news” in one language and change the meaning to something else. Not possible and it does not make sense.
“He reveals” the Jesus’s time Aramaic, is better name for scripture than “good news” of the Greek. The Greeks did copy the awongaleeyoon and transliterated it to their use.
Quran.
Quran is a simple document and uses what people already know to make a point. At the time of its revelation, the Arab Christians were already familiar with injeel of injil which is a scripture of Jesus. In order to make it simple and not to confuse them, the Quran reminded them that yes, message they know as injil was indeed given to Jesus Himself(Not Mark, Mathew, John, Luke etc.). It went on to talk about Zabur, Torah etc. which the Arabs and others were familiar with and corrected them who it was given to.
It would have been confusing for the Quran to use “ha-bishara” or “al-bishara” because the people do not know or use them to refer to the message of Jesus. By Quran using what people know and use to make a point does not mean it transliterated anything from Greek. It is merely making an assertion to what people already known or use. If anything at all, the transliteration might have originated from the original Aramaic which the Greek themselves did.
If the people were using Al bishara or ha bishara, the Quran would have used than one too to make a point. The Quran did not say what h
If you learn ancient Egypt history, you will realize that there were times when the Egyptians used King to signify their ruler but not Pharoah and there was a time when the Egyptian used Pharoah to signify their rulers but not King and the Quran know all an narrated each time and signify the appropriate title at those times for the rulers of Egypt in narrating the stories to our prophet.
Quran just uses some of the norm of the day to make a point but not transliterating any Greek.
Eric Arthur Blair of Animal Farm fame, has changed his name to George Orwell and most people knew he is George Orwell and call him George Orwell of Animal farm. If you want to make a point about animal farm, it is better to use George Orwell to make your point and it will go on with people than using Eric Arthur Blair which most people don’t know or will at least be confused. Doing that does not mean you endorse Eric changing himself to George Orwell.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
apostle comes from apostolos αποστολος and apostello αποστελλω. I didn’t mean to say the word apostle comes from angelos. The concept of “messanger” is sometimes translated as “apostle” (one who is sent with a message).
I say;
You are smart. You quickly realized that, if we go by your explanation a messenger with regards to eu and angel, Paul of Tarsus will be excluded because he is not a messenger from God, hence your further explanation to include apostle in it. It obviously did not help you because all prophets said, they were sent by God but none of them said they say a prophet by vision. They all got their message direct from God, but not by inspiration to write any word from God. So Paul of Tarsus is still not a messenger.
You said;
The Hebrew for “good news” is Basar בשר , cognate with the Aramaic and Arabic, بشر / بشاره .
This was translated centuries before Christ (200 BC) as the verbal form of “euangelion” in Isaiah 40:9, for example.
So, the Greek word euangelion is not based on a Aramaic word, “He reveals”; rather the Greek word is “eu” = good and “angel” (news), from which we get angel – messenger and apostle from.
Isaiah 40:9
Get yourself up on a high mountain,
O Zion, bearer of good news,
I say;
I am glad you now realized the word awongaleeyoon is an ancient Aramaic meaning “He reveals”. You initially wrongly thought the modern Syriac transliterated it from Greek evangelion which means “good news”. You are completely wrong on that, so please do not argue on that again because you were wrong.
Now, the Quran is not defining names of what God gave Jesus, but simply telling people at that time and today who thinks, a message called injil was given to Jesus is actually true but it was given direct to Jesus but no one else. It went on to identify other revelations that people know to be Zabur, Torah etc. at that time and today.
How did they arrive by those names, is none of Quran got damned business. There are revelations out there and the Quran is talking about those revelations that people knew and familiar with. It makes sense than bringing names like al bishara which no one knows. If anything at all the transliteration might have come from the original ancient Aramaic of Jesus time which means awongaleeyoon-“He reveals”.
The Jews uses Yahweh in the Old Testament for God, they call God Eloh, Allah etc. and the Aramaic call God Allaha and Jesus called God on the cross as Allaha but not Yahweh and the Arabs call God Allah, so old testament name like “good news” must not be necessarily the only name for scripture. awongaleeyoon-“He reveals” the ancient Aramaic of Jesus time sounds more appropriate than “good news”.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The Peshitta translation from 2nd century AD is ancient Syriac Aramaic – it is not modern Aramaic. Modern Aramaic is called Assyrian today. The Assyrians of Syria, Iraq and Iran speak this today; All of them fled from eastern Turkey in the last 100 years; Many of these Assyrians have fled these areas over the centuries – there are large populations of them in Detroit, Chicago, and in Los Angeles, California.
So, apparently, if those sources you cite are correct, they apparently transliterated the Greek word, euangelion and its forms into the Peshitta Aramaic, rather than translating the word into their own language, which would have been Bashar / Basar and it’s cognates.
The Greek word is clearly there for “good news” in the OT translation, the Lxx – the Septuagint, from around 300-200 BC, so it shows it did not come from an Aramaic word that means “he reveals”. I question the validity of that theory of “he reveals”, since the Greek word does not mean that at all. Seems like a theory to me. Most scholars don’t agree with the theory that the gospels were first written in Aramaic. Even the so called “Q” (Quelle = “source” in German) has never been found. It is a hypothetical theory.
Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, yes; that is clear in statements embedded in Mark and Matthew. But someone like Matthew also spoke Greek, in order to talk to the Romans and Greeks, as he was a tax-collector. Mark also spoke Greek. Mark wrote the gospel according to Mark from Peter’s sermons and memory; and Silvanus wrote 1 Peter for Peter, and Judas probably wrote 2 Peter for Peter, translating from Aramaic.
LikeLike
There are many historical reasons that convince virtually all scholars, even conservative evangelical ones, that 2 Peter is a mid 2nd century letter – not by Peter. But as a convinced fundamentalist you cannot countenance this being the case. Your presuppositions prevent objective assessment of the evidence.
LikeLike
The Jews uses Yahweh in the Old Testament for God, they call God Eloh, Allah etc. . . .
wrong! Yahweh is יהוה YHWH, usually translated into English as LORD, or Jehovah, and in Arabic as Rabb رب ; whereas as “God” in Hebrew is Elohim אלוהימ , which is related to the Aramaic Eloha and Elah, and ancient Hebrew El = אל
Allah in Arabic is related to the Eloha, Elah, El, and Elohim roots, not Yahweh.
That is why you will see “LORD God” in the English Bibles in the OT – see Genesis chapter 2 – it is 2 different words, יהוה- אלוהימ
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
We have already discussed the 2 Peter issue a lot over the years.
What do you think about ευαγγελιον / euangelion (The Gospel) / ευαγγελιζομαι / euangelizomai “to preach good news”. Do you think that came from an Aramaic word that means “he reveals” ? What about the fact that the Greek term was known for centuries and is in the LXX translation – I gave Isaiah 40:9 as one piece of evidence.
I never heard this theory that the Greek word, euangelion came from an Aramaic word, “he reveals”.
The Peshitta / Ancient Syriac is well know that it was translated from Greek and Hebrew. apparently, the word for Gospel was transliterated (ewongeliyoon) rather than translated.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Jews uses Yahweh in the Old Testament for God, they call God Eloh, Allah etc. . . .
wrong! Yahweh is יהוה YHWH, usually translated into English as LORD, or Jehovah, and in Arabic as Rabb رب ; whereas as “God” in Hebrew is Elohim אלוהימ , which is related to the Aramaic Eloha and Elah, and ancient Hebrew El = אל
Allah in Arabic is related to the Eloha, Elah, El, and Elohim roots, not Yahweh.
That is why you will see “LORD God” in the English Bibles in the OT – see Genesis chapter 2 – it is 2 different words, יהוה- אלוהימ
I say;
So Yahweh is not God?
My Good God!!! Wonders will never end. Trinitarians will change anything at will to support their claim.
My dear brother, do not do that, it is not good for you to be changing things at will for your whims and caprice.
Yahweh is not God but Father? according to you? When Yahweh clearly said this;
in the Bible?
Are you sleeping? or day dreaming? Anyway excuse me Sir but I have to use such questions because you did not respect me for telling me Yahweh is not God. I have been quoting these verses over and over for you, so can’t tell me Yahweh is God when Yahweh said He is the only one and alone God in the Bible.
Proof
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me” Isaiah 46:9
“there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
“Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
“Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
“See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
Ken, where is your proof as clear as above where Yahweh said
I Yahweh I am
-3 persons in 1 God
-God-Man and none else
-Trinity and none else
-3 distinct persons and none else
-hypostatic union and none else
-God the Son and none else etc.
I am happy give you more proof like this
“I am Yahweh, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18
“Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.” Isaiah 45:21
God as Father metaphorically is Father to all of us and not Jesus alone, unless you mean God impregnated Mary as the Greek Mythology or through in vitro fertilization by introducing Himself in the womb of Mary for 9 months pregnancy.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yahweh is God, of course, LORD God; I mean the Hebrew word for “God” is not “Yahweh”. The God of the OT uses 2 main Hebrew words, Yahweh YHWH and Elohim. Above.
I never meant to say that Yahweh is not God.
It seems that you were ignoring that they are 2 different words.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
So, apparently, if those sources you cite are correct, they apparently transliterated the Greek word, euangelion and its forms into the Peshitta Aramaic, rather than translating the word into their own language, which would have been Bashar / Basar and it’s cognates.
I say;
Always changing what you said and never accept defeat. You initially said, the Aramaic translated “good news” as “ha-bishara” in their peshitta but now changing your stance in that, it is not “ha-bashara” anymore but my sources.
You said;
The Peshitta translation from 2nd century AD is ancient Syriac Aramaic – it is not modern Aramaic. Modern Aramaic is called Assyrian today. The Assyrians of Syria, Iraq and Iran speak this today; All of them fled from eastern Turkey in the last 100 years; Many of these Assyrians have fled these areas over the centuries – there are large populations of them in Detroit, Chicago, and in Los Angeles, California.
So, apparently, if those sources you cite are correct, they apparently transliterated the Greek word, euangelion and its forms into the Peshitta Aramaic, rather than translating the word into their own language, which would have been Bashar / Basar and it’s cognates.
I say;
During my prophets time, no NT was translated to Arabic. NT was not translated into so many languages then, as it has so many stories of Jesus circulating, so translating to other languages including Arabic and Modern day Syriac was done recently. If there is any ancient Aramaic, it will be in Jesus time not the Peshitta or some gospels like the gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary etc. which say different things from the canonical gospels. If the Peshitta was fully translated as fully NT in the second century, why did the church not refer to it as proof for their Greek canon? Why did King James version not use it? as a source if it is earlier as 2nd century full NT. The Greek NT itself was not canonized as early as that of your 2nd century Peshitta translation.
You said;
wrong! Yahweh is יהוה YHWH, usually translated into English as LORD, or Jehovah, and in Arabic as Rabb رب ; whereas as “God” in Hebrew is Elohim אלוהימ , which is related to the Aramaic Eloha and Elah, and ancient Hebrew El = אל
Allah in Arabic is related to the Eloha, Elah, El, and Elohim roots, not Yahweh.
I say;
There are so many Lords but God is Only One. Visit the British Parliament and Courts and most Government and court establishments in the whole world and in many languages including Hebrew/Aramaic/ and Arabic and you will see and hear people referred to as Lords, Rabb but none of them is called Allah, Allaha or Yahweh.
Allah, Allaha, Yahweh, God, Elah is referred to the Only one true God of Abraham.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Robert Picirilli has shown that 2 Peter is clearly a possible source for 22 ( !!) allusions by the early church fathers. Robert E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers”, Journal of the Study of the New Testament; 33:57-83, 1988. (Discussed by Gene Green, Commentary on Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary, pp. 140-144; 2008; and by Wayne Stiles, “Is 2 Peter Peter’s?” at bible.org)
Picirilli, page 74 – “The strongest possibilities have been found in 1 Clement, Pseudo-Clement (2 Clement), Barnabas, and Hermas.”
I gave the Barnabas citation earlier as the earliest, but Picirilli sees several; allusions in 1 Clement (chapter 11; 23:3; and 2 Clement ( 11:2) and Hermas.
1 Clement (96 AD) and the Didache (70-120 AD) are the two earliest non-canonical extant Christian writings. (70 AD – 96 AD)
“If and when the similarities between 2 Peter and the Fathers are a possible twenty-two times, “the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable” (Picirilli, 74. ) is high that 2 Peter is Peter’s. ” Styles, ibid.
He summarizes the external evidence well, by saying that:
“One cannot dogmatically affirm that there are certainly no allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers; the common material is too obviously there… . [The] authenticity of 2 Peter will have to be debated on grounds other than whether the Apostolic Fathers knew it and alluded to it.” Picirilli, 74, 76.
Jude uses 2 Peter, and Jude is first century, probably the last book of the NT to be written. Jude 3 – “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”
Jude, the half-brother of Jesus, probably wrote it out while Peter dictated it to him while Peter was in prison awaiting execution by Nero. Peter knows he is going to be killed / executed = 2 Peter 1:12-18.
Furthermore, the apocryphal and heretical and Gnostic work, The Apocalypse of Peter, quotes from 2 Peter; and scholars agree that the Apocalypse of Peter came later.
There were lots of other spurious and apocryphal and pseudonymous works in Peter’s name in the early 2nd Century. All the pseudonymous works always added other information/doctrines whereas 2 Peter does not add anything Gnostic or heretical or false. The early church was slow in recognizing it because they were being careful since so many other works were floating around with Peter’s name on them.
“It may be conclusively stated that there is no definitive evidence against the authenticity of 2 Peter in spite of the fact that the majority of scholarship today rejects apostolic authorship. The external evidence, while not proving authenticity, neither disproves it, for the evidence provides twenty-two possible usages of 2 Peter. The internal evidence, particularly the personal allusions to Peter’s life, clearly means to communicate that the author is Peter. The issues regarding history, doctrine, and style are, again, not conclusively against Petrine authorship, but on the contrary, may be used to support it. Each historical problem has a viable solution which harmonizes with Peter’s hand, and the issues of doctrine and style can be attributed naturally to purpose and Peter’s use of an amanuensis.”
Wayne Stiles, “Is 2 Peter Peter’s?”
“The epistle opens with the name “Simon Peter” as the author (1:1), it mentions the immanency of his death foretold by the Lord (1:14), and the author claims to have been an eyewitness to the Transfiguration (1:16–18).” Wayne Stiles, ibid.
LikeLike
Ken are you aware of the many historical reasons virtually all experts in the New Testament documents regard 2 Peter as not by the apostle Peter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said;
I never heard this theory that the Greek word, euangelion came from an Aramaic word, “he reveals”.
The Peshitta / Ancient Syriac is well know that it was translated from Greek and Hebrew. apparently, the word for Gospel was transliterated (ewongeliyoon) rather than translated.
I say;
There you are
Write to the research site and ask them to remove the information and provide your evidence to them. And a true Trinitarian Christian like you supports the research site. You can write your fellow Trinitarian and ask him to retract his research or ask for clarification and explanation. I have a well research proof and evidence to my claim but you have not.
Source:
http://v-a.com/
Source2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam
There is no ancient Peshitta as early as 2nd century that consist of the greek canon of New Testament. The Peshitta, like all languages is recent translation of NT to that language.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Always changing what you said and never accept defeat. You initially said, the Aramaic translated “good news” as “ha-bishara” in their peshitta but now changing your stance in that, it is not “ha-bashara” anymore but my sources.
I was assuming and going by the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word, Basar, so I could be wrong on that – I found that in another article, so I don’t know which one is right on what the Peshitta/Syriac says in all instances of “gospel” and “preach good news”.
I would have to know the Syriac and script and all occurrences of the claim of your articles for “ewongeliyoon” as “he reveals”. The Greek is clearly before that, in the LXX in 200 BC, which I showed you, so that is the reason I doubt that the Greek term comes from the Aramaic word, rather it is the Aramaic transliterated word coming from the original Greek.
in light of the Greek euangelion = “good news” eu = good; angel = message, that claim does not seem credible.
I was talking about Palestinian Aramaic and not Syriac Aramaic. I studied Biblical Aramaic in seminary for one semester, and it is in Daniel and Ezra, and one quote in Jeremiah, etc. – It was written in the Hebrew script, so I don’t know about the Syriac Script.
One would have to know the background of the translation of the Greek NT into Syriac/Peshitta.
Many scholars believe the Arabic of the Qur’an got some of it’s information from the Syriac/Peshitta – like Injeel and the word for God, coming from the Syriac Eloha.
LikeLike
Ken are you aware of the many historical reasons virtually all experts in the New Testament documents regard 2 Peter as not by the apostle Peter?
Yes, I am aware that MOST do (like Richard Bauckham); but I am giving evidence for those that argue for 2 Peter as from Peter himself. (noteable conservative scholars on this are commentaries and articles in scholarly journals by:
1. Michael Green,
2. Gene L. Green, commentary cited above
3. Robert Picirilli;
4. Donald Guthrie,
5. F. H. Chase, (1900)
6. Bigg (1901),
7. Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter”, in Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, volume 42, no. 4; 1999.
8. Thomas Shreiner (commentary)
argue for Petrine authorship.
LikeLike
But once one examines the reasons more deeply, which those conservative scholars discuss, they disappear as so firm and dogmatic.
Also, # 9 is Wayne Stiles, in an extensive article at bible.org – with 72 footnotes. He interacts with those historical reasons.
https://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s#P38_7931
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I would have to know the Syriac and script and all occurrences of the claim of your articles for “ewongeliyoon” as “he reveals”. The Greek is clearly before that, in the LXX in 200 BC, which I showed you, so that is the reason I doubt that the Greek term comes from the Aramaic word, rather it is the Aramaic transliterated word coming from the original Greek.
I say;
If the Greek as a language is before Aramaic or Aramaic is before Greek, is matter of another research. I do not know which came first but it seems most semitic languages was derived from Aramaic, so it might be there for a long time.
Our argument here is, did Jesus and his disciples used Aramaic, their mother tongue to spread and write the message of God or did they use Greek. Scholars believed, Greek was for the affluent who can educate their children but not local Gallillean fishermen who are poor to go to school for a higher education and even if so, the local audience who must hear and understand Jesus message first will have a lot of them who do not understand or speak Greek as can be seen today when you visit Africa, even though use their colonized language like English, French, Portuguese, Italian etc. for as their national languages, but if you are not able to attend to English school which no one can, to learn then you cannot speak or understand or write English but your mother language is automatic because you learn it as you grow.
Because of that, any gatherings, local or religious documents, preaching, written, speech etc. is done in local dialect and preferred that way because so many people do not understand the official language because they could not have the chance to go to school.
Fortunately, Aramaic is both written and spoken, and could easily understood and written by many in Jesus time because they learn as they grow, so Jesus will obviously speak and write his message in Aramaic rather than Greek first. It will them be translated to Greek for others to know. That is what is done in Asia, Arabia, Africa, etc. to those who have local written and spoken language before translating to other languages.
So, the Greek borrowed the “awongaleeyoon” from Aramaic and used the “good news” of the old testament instead of “He revealed” to prove they are consistent with then old testament, not knowing “He reveals” is more appropriate than “Good news” and any term can change for the better.
You said;
Many scholars believe the Arabic of the Qur’an got some of it’s information from the Syriac/Peshitta – like Injeel and the word for God, coming from the Syriac Eloha.
I say;
There was no NT translation to either Arabic or Syriac/Peshitta at the time of our prophet. Quran takes what people already knows and understand, the correct them on that. It just corrected the people that the revelations they knew is from one same God and He mentioned who He gave those revelations to.
If it says “ha-bishara”, it will not make sense to anyone because they do not know it but knows zabur, injil, taurat etc. The Quran did not transliterate anything from Greek.
Thanks
LikeLike
So, the Greek borrowed the “awongaleeyoon” from Aramaic and used the “good news” of the old testament instead of “He revealed” to prove they are consistent with then old testament, not knowing “He reveals” is more appropriate than “Good news” and any term can change for the better.
That does not make sense, because I already showed you Isaiah 40:9 in the Lxx Septugint, translated between 300-200 BC. The meaning is “the one who preaches good news” or “the one who brings good news”. I showed that above, so the Greek word does not come from a supposed Aramaic word of “he reveals”. Rather, that has to be a transliteration from Greek, not a translation.
LikeLike
The Qur’an got a lot of foreign words in it. This has been proven by the famous book by Arthur Jeffery:
https://archive.org/details/foreignvocabular030753mbp
see the discussion of Injeel انجیل in pages 71-72 – “obviously it is the Greek, ευαγγελιον . . . “
LikeLike
The famous Islamic scholar, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (Arabic: جلال الدين السيوطي) (c. 1445–1505 AD) – categorized lots of foreign words in the Qur’an (see page 12 of Jeffery’s book)
many from Syriac, Persian, Greek, Coptic, Hebrew, Ethiopian, even Indian and Turkish and others.
LikeLike
And Iblis ابلیس comes from the Greek, διαβολος / diabolos – page 47-48, Arthur Jeffery.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The famous Islamic scholar, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (Arabic: جلال الدين السيوطي) (c. 1445–1505 AD) – categorized lots of foreign words in the Qur’an (see page 12 of Jeffery’s book)
many from Syriac, Persian, Greek, Coptic, Hebrew, Ethiopian, even Indian and Turkish and others.
You also said;
And Iblis ابلیس comes from the Greek, διαβολος / diabolos – page 47-48, Arthur Jeffery.
I say;
English was derived from Latin, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc.
Arabic was derived from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek
So many African languages like Swahili, Hausa and Fula etc. were derived from Arabic
Urdu, Farsi, and most Asian languages were derived from Arabic
That is how languages were formed and you will see resemblance of other languages in another language. So to accuse the Quran which uses Arabic for borrowing other languages because of some slight resemblance like;
“And Iblis ابلیس comes from the Greek, διαβολος / diabolos – page 47-48, Arthur Jeffery” is intellectual bankruptcy and philosophically dishonest.
The New Testament has borrowed words, phrases like “good news”, Son, Father, etc. and you are happy about that but just to accuse the Quran from borrowing from Torah of injil. Dr. James White says you should apply the same standard other wise he will excommunicate you from his ministry.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Language issue:
Farsi / Persian is not derived from Arabic, but it does have a lot of Arabic in it. The Persian / Farsi / Parsi language was already there before Omar attacked and for three hundred years the Arab Muslims subjugated the Persians and converted them to Islam by force, almost totally getting rid of Zoroastrianism (Many were killed and many fled to India; today in Mumbai India, the “Parsees” (Zoroastrians) are more there than is left in Iran), the religion of Iran/Persia in those days. The Arabs changed their script to the Arabic script, and yes, there are many Arabic words in Farsi, but Farsi does not derive from Arabic. Farsi has 4 sounds that Arabic does not have, so they add dots and lines to certain letters. پ = p; گ = g; ژ = jhe; چ = ch. The conquering Arabs could not say “P”, so Parsi became Farsi.
Inspiration of Scripture Issue:
To use words from other languages – It does not affect our doctrine of inspiration, because in the orthodox Christian doctrine of inspiration, God uses human personality and language to write Scripture. But to borrow words like Injeel and Iblis from Greek would seem to go against the Islamic doctrine of the inspiration of the Qur’an, since it was an eternal tablet in heaven spoken in Arabic and came down over 22 years to Muhammad – 610-632 AD.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Language issue:
Farsi / Persian is not derived from Arabic, but it does have a lot of Arabic in it. The Persian / Farsi / Parsi language was already there before Omar attacked and for three hundred years the Arab Muslims subjugated the Persians and converted them to Islam by force, almost totally getting rid of Zoroastrianism (Many were killed and many fled to India; today in Mumbai India, the “Parsees” (Zoroastrians) are more there than is left in Iran), the religion of Iran/Persia in those days. The Arabs changed their script to the Arabic script, and yes, there are many Arabic words in Farsi, but Farsi does not derive from Arabic. Farsi has 4 sounds that Arabic does not have, so they add dots and lines to certain letters. پ = p; گ = g; ژ = jhe; چ = ch. The conquering Arabs could not say “P”, so Parsi became Farsi.
I say;
According to the Bible “Thou shall not lie”. So Ken, provides us the evidence that Islam or Muslims subjugated the Persians and converted them by force? If you are not able to provide evidence then you lied and need to repent and apologize.
Right now Iran is not controlled by Arab Muslims but by Persians and are Iranians but not Arab Muslims. If they were subjugated and converted to Islam by force, they are now and for centuries on their own without any Muslim Arab influence and won their independence from any control and why did they not converted back to their religion? and reject Islam that was forced on them? There are Jews in Iran right now. They were there for a long time, and in all Muslims lands and they are still there in Morocco(When the Christians killed them and tried to force convert the rest and the run and followed Muslims to the Muslims lands), Yemite Jews, Assyrian Christians like Sam Shamoun, Lebanese Jews and Christians, Palestinian Jews and Christians, Iraqi Jews((first Christians during Jesus time) until Bush’s and Blair evangelical Christian war in Iraq that brought isis, these Christians were living with Muslims for centuries without any major problem.)
We knew when the Christian crusaders force converted Jews in Holy Land and was saved by Muslims, the forced converted Jews reverted back into their religion and Umar ordered their place of worship to be cleaned.
When the Christian force converted the Jews and the Muslims, in Spain, they did not accept and either were killed by the barbaric Christians or run away and that is when the Muslims were leaving the Jews leave with them to the Muslim lands until today in Morocco, Yemen, Bahrain, Lebanon, etc. and all the Arab lands. You see the difference between barbaric Christianity and peaceful Islam?
You said;
Inspiration of Scripture Issue:
To use words from other languages – It does not affect our doctrine of inspiration, because in the orthodox Christian doctrine of inspiration, God uses human personality and language to write Scripture. But to borrow words like Injeel and Iblis from Greek would seem to go against the Islamic doctrine of the inspiration of the Qur’an, since it was an eternal tablet in heaven spoken in Arabic and came down over 22 years to Muhammad – 610-632 AD.
I say;
I proved to you with evidence that, the Quran did not borrow from Greek but just explain to people and corrected them with what they already knew, like ijil, zabur, taurat and not “ha-bashara” which nobody knows but you want the Quran to use that. The Quran is wiser than you Sir. If the Quran had use your “ha bishara”, the people would have asked what heck is this “ha bishara”. We knew injil, zabur, taurat etc. and what is “ha bishara”? The Quran will always use what is sensible.
Is zabur Greek? Is Taurat Greek? No. just like injil they are known revelations during our prophets time. “ha bashara” is not a known revelation except to minority people like you. It is not sensible to use “ha bashara” please.
Injil from the original Aramaic means “He reveals” and is a better name for a revelation or a scripture from God, than “Good news”. The gospel writers will always try to import words, phrases, jargons etc. from the old testament to make their lies credible without realizing that “He reveals” from Aramaic is better than “Good news” from the old testament and any change for the better by Jesus and his Aramaic is better.
Thanks
LikeLike
You did not prove anything. Greek was first Injeel (LXX and NT) and the Syriac transliterated it, they did not translate the meaning. It does not mean “he reveals”. Bad source.
I proved it by the LXX translation of Isaiah 40:9, 300-200 years BC.
The Hadith that I cited in the post about David Wood proves the Muslims attacked and conquered the Persians by force.
LikeLike