| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Bondservant |
Posted - 12 Mar 2004 : 08:14:19
The Aramaic in Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ is faked. It is based on the modern Chaldean-Arabic. In fact, it's absolute gibberish, yet people who don't know the difference are being misled regarding its authenticity.
The name of our Lord is transliterated as Eashoa the Messiah. The name of our Lord in the original Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew language is in two syllables, "E-sho".
"Jesus Christ" in the Ancient Aramaic language is pronounced:
Ea-shoa' M'shee-kha
Eashoa' means "the Life-Giver"
Msheekha means "the Anointed One"
Eashoa' Msheekha means "The Anointed Life-Giver"
In the Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ, the name Yeshua is used. It's a distortion of the name Eashoa and leads to the fallacy that the name of Eashoa is not mentioned in the Old Testament. However, Eashoa is the name of our Lord and it is in the Old Testament and it means "Life-Giver" or "Savior."
If you're not going to pronounce it right, you might as well stick with "Jesus." At least everyone understands what Jesus means; it's the Anglicized name of Eashoa.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bondservant |
Posted - 15 Mar 2004 : 16:17:35
Also at http://worldvisionportal.org/WVPforum/viewtopic.php?t=194 |
| Manuel |
Posted - 15 Mar 2004 : 14:59:49
You can hear the Lords Prayer In original Ancient Aramaic
at the following site:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/prayer.html |
| Bondservant |
Posted - 13 Mar 2004 : 18:24:35
"Aramaic departed from Hebrew for purposes of idolatry and popularity..."
Factually, both the spoken and written Hebrew departed from the Ancient Aramaic, not the other way around. The Israelites intermingled Chaldean into their language which is why books like Strong's Concordance even exist today with Chaldean definitions. Nothing has ever changed the preserved Ancient Aramaic, but what is called Hebrew today has only some resemblance to the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew. The idolatry was an Isrealite problem, as their own history and writings repeatedly prove.
"Since the Israelites spoke Aramaic, and knowledge of Hebrew had diminished along with Israelites, was no longerwidespread, the practice arose amongst Israelis providing the reading of the sacred Hebrew scriptures with an Aramaic translation or paraphrase, a 'Targum'."
Yes, the Israelites diluted the true Aramaic to the point that only some Ancient Aramaic words were used. It was the Israelites who paraphrased because their linguistics had changed from the original Aramaic. That is why the Hebrew texts cannot trace back as far as the Ancient Aramaic texts still in existence today.
"Yeshua having the ability to speak all languages, since He created them along with all things, He spoke Hebrew to the Hebrews, Aramaic to those of Aramaic, and Greek to those who spoke Greek."
Where is the proof for this theory dated in any text prior to 70 AD?
"Regarding His Name, He used only Hebrew, as can be seen in Genesis 15:1. hwhyYhvh (yeh-ho-vaw')."
According to Chaldean-Arabic texts [what some call the Talmud(s) today], that may be true. But according to the ancient Aramaic-Hebrew texts, that is absolutely false, and those texts go back much farther in their pure linguistics.
"He also commanded that His Name not be profaned as in calling Him by another name/character, defiling it with other names/characters, desecrating His Name/Character by other names/characters, or pollute oneself who carries this Name/Character by the other names as invented, coined, and used by worldly unbelievers. Lev 20:3; 21:6; 22:2; 22:32."
Yes, so let's stop using modern Chaldean-Arabic names that were paraphrased TARGUM taken from the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew.
"In Genesis 4:26 men began to call upon the Name of YHVH (YeHoVaH). They did not call Him by any other name, heathens profaned and desecrating His Name by changing the Hebrew Name He provided for Himself, into one which represented their pagan elohiym's (g-d's)."
In the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew language, those names are not written or spoken as you quoted from the more modern Talmuds. Those names appeared later when the Hebrew Torahs/Talmuds and other Israelite texts where written using intermingled Chaldean and Arabic words.
"In the course of time a whole array of Aramaic targums for the Law and other parts of the scripture were placed in substitution and composed. More than translations, they incorporated much of traditional Israeli scriptural interpretation from the original Hebrew to Aramaic. If the Israelites would have remained holy unto YeHoVaH they would have never fallen into the use of Aramaic, but would have retained the Holy language of YeHoVaH. Their sin sent them astray into languages which grew only to confuse men, and separate them from The Holiness of YeHoVaH."
A nice theory and nicely written, but there is no fact or evidence to back it up. The timeline facts prove that the TARGUMS where paraphrases created by the Israelites due to their loss of Aramaic linguistics. Their language became such a loose mix, they had forgotten what the true Aramaic words meant, so they paraphrased as best they could remember. Their captivity in babylon was the biggest cause behind their later use of TARGUMS.
"In their Israeli lives with Aramaic, they commented, and debated Israeli law; the records of their deliberations constitute the two talmuds: that of the land of Israel and the much larger Babylonian Talmud. This mixing, represents what evil Israel did in the sight of YeHoVaH, which is ultimately why the nation of Israel ceased to exists as a physical nation. They mixed the things of YeHoVaH with the things of the world (Babylonia). Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects)."
Where are you getting these fairy tales from? Chaldean became the language basis of the Babylonian Talmud since Babylon spoke an ancient form of Chaldean during that period. Only some Ancient Aramaic exists in the Talmud. Modern eastern and western Aramaic, including Syriac, has little to do with the Ancient Aramaic-Hebrew.
"Understanding the history of Aramaic and it's tradition of following the Rabbinical Talmudist, it is a great error to use the Aramaic form of Yahuah's name and His name within His servants. This would be no different that using Jesus, or Lord for His name."
You obviously don't know the factual history of Ancient Aramaic and have merely read modern theories published by Jewish Zionists who are doing a good job of re-writing true history to fit their own agendas.
If you want to post something in this topic regarding my original post, then please take the time to know what you're posting rather than repeat the gibberish from someone who has never seen Ancient Aramaic written, let alone ever heard it spoken. Some facts instead of cut and paste modern theories from an obscure internet site would be a good start.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
| Manuel |
Posted - 13 Mar 2004 : 13:46:16
"Hear me, you hearers, and learn of my words, you who know me.
I am the hearing that is attainable to everything; I am the speech that cannot be grasped.
I am the name of the sound and the sound of the name.
I am the sign of the letter and the designation of the division."
Excerpted from The Thunder, Perfect Mind
A Gnostic Scroll from the Nag Hammadi Library |
| 2-elect |
Posted - 13 Mar 2004 : 11:14:28
http://www.yeshuamyredeemer.com/aramaic.htm
Scriptural Aramaic
Aramaic departed from Hebrew for purposes of idolatry and
popularity among the Israelites, a fact reflected in scripture,
where portions of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic, while the
majority of the other writings are in Hebrew. Some of the known
stories in biblical literature, including that of Belshazzar's
feast with the famous "handwriting on the wall" are in Aramaic.
Since the Israelites spoke Aramaic, and knowledge of Hebrew had
diminished along with Israelites, was no longerwidespread, the
practice arose amongst Israelis providing the reading of the
sacred Hebrew scriptures with an Aramaic translation or
paraphrase, a "Targum".
Yeshua having the ability to speak all languages, since He
created them along with all things, He spoke Hebrew to the
Hebrews, Aramaic to those of Aramaic, and Greek to those who spoke
Greek.
Regarding His Name, He used only Hebrew, as can be seen in
Genesis 15:1.
hwhyYhvh (yeh-ho-vaw').
He also commanded that His Name not be profaned as in calling
Him by another name/character, defiling it with other
names/characters, desecrating His Name/Character by other
names/characters, or pollute oneself who carries this
Name/Character by the other names as invented, coined, and used by
worldly unbelievers. Lev 20:3; 21:6; 22:2; 22:32.
In Genesis 4:26 men began to call upon the Name of YHVH
(YeHoVaH). They did not call Him by any other name, heathens
profaned and desecrating His Name by changing the Hebrew Name He
provided for Himself, into one which represented their pagan
elohiym's (g-d's).
In the course of time a whole array of Aramaic targums for the
Law and other parts of the scripture were placed in substitution
and composed. More than translations, they incorporated much of
traditional Israeli scriptural interpretation from the original
Hebrew to Aramaic. If the Israelites would have remained holy unto
YeHoVaH they would have never fallen into the use of Aramaic, but
would have retained the Holy language of YeHoVaH. Their sin sent
them astray into languages which grew only to confuse men, and
separate them from The Holiness of YeHoVaH.
In their Israeli lives with Aramaic, they commented, and debated
Israeli law; the records of their deliberations constitute the two
talmuds: that of the land of Israel and the much larger Babylonian
Talmud. This mixing, represents what evil Israel did in the sight
of YeHoVaH, which is ultimately why the nation of Israel ceased to
exists as a physical nation. They mixed the things of YeHoVaH with
the things of the world (Babylonia). Although the talmuds contain
much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast
compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).
----
Understanding the history of Aramaic and it's tradition of
following the Rabbinical Talmudist, it is a great error to use the Aramaic
form of Yahuah's name and His name within His servants. This
would be no different that using Jesus, or Lord for His name. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 12 Mar 2004 : 12:25:38
Greetings Bondservant, In The Anointed Life-Giver,
What you bring out is necessary. Walter recently wrote of "sounds," on his last post I believe, regarding the pronounciation of "IAUE." You write of the sound, Eashoa. Therefore I believe we must speak more of what "sounds" are right/light.
On another "note," I always had "bad-vibes" to what you remind us, to wit: "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me." That "ending" never stood well with me, and I believe, many others, which I thank you for bringing that up.
Recently, during a "trial," following anger against His Truth, a buzzer was pushed which caused an uneasy loud frequency and to the un-learned, possibly a loss of witts. The buzzer sound was released for about two minutes, non-stop, evidently to cause stress. Whether it was "pushed" to alert some others trained to respond to that sound, similar to the "silent wistle" call to dogs, or maybe to cause one facing the adversary, to loose track of thoughts is surely interesting. Anyway... sounds sure are a big issue.
His Grace, Light and Harmony be upon you and your love ones,
I am, In Him, IAUE Eashoa' Willing,
Manuel
|
| Bondservant |
Posted - 12 Mar 2004 : 10:08:08
There is a lack of recognition for the truth about rejection of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures and how the Mel Gibson movie blasphemes in the pronunciation of His words from the Cross, namely, Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani, which are rendered, Ullahi, Ullahi, lema sabactani and translated in error as My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me.
This utterance of Eashoa on the Cross is retained in the Ancient Aramaic in all the Scriptures, but is transliterated in error. Maybe there's a providential reason for it, because on this passage alone may hang the entire misinterpretation of the Scriptures by Western Christianity. I can't find anywhere in the Aramaic Scriptures that the word sh'wik-thani means "forsaken."
This is a blasphemy against the Messiah that has evolved out of the modern Chaldean-Arabic version of the Bible, the very version that the Greek and the Latin Vulgate are translated from, and subsequently the King James Version and all other Western Bibles. They all blaspheme in this passage and declare that the Father forsook His Son. I don't believe that it was this version that was to be the true Gospel; however, it may have been intended as the stumbling block for Western Christianity, necessitating a return to the true Faith sometime in the future.
Now this Mel Gibson film comes on the world stage and unintentionally exposes this hypocrisy of the Western churches. On the one hand, the mainstream Christian churches of the West claim that the New Testament was written in Greek; and on the other hand, they retain the Chaldean-Arabic passage in the Text of their Bibles. How ironic!
Whereas, the Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Text of the passage reads Eili, Eili, l'ma-na sh'wik-thani and there is no translation after it, such as "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me" or whatever, because there's no need to translate the Ancient Aramaic. This passage, as well as the entire New Testament, is already in the Ancient Aramaic and needs no translation or transliteration.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. - Mark 12:27 |
|
|
