Jesus: The Missing Years in the East

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Wasn't Manichaeism a bigger competitor to Christianity than Mithraism?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You've claimed they are all the same word. So it should match 'sabachthani'. Does it?

It shouldn't match "sabachtani" because the word for destiny, helqa/helqwt or, in Aramaic, חלשׁ/helesh, isn't the word in the "Aramaic" (Syriac) NT here. The word in Mark and Matthew is a verb, not a noun (ܫܒ&#1833, and here is in the perfect 2nd person masculine singular. It's ܫܒ݂ܰܩܬ݁ܳܢܝ or sabachtani. It means to leave, forsake, or desert.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I guess, for one thing, it's just a coincidence that Mitra, Mithras, and Jesus are all solar deities.

They aren't. Jesus wasn't a solar deity. He wasn't even a deity for some time after his death and has continually not been considered a deity by certain believers the whole time. Meanwhile, neither Mitra nor Mithras were ever considered to be people. And while there are similarities between Mithras and Jesus, these are either coincidental or the result of borrowings of pagan cults which we now know adapted to the spread of Christian ideas by adopting many of these ideas (just like the Christians did with Greek/Hellenistic philosophy).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The pe****ta.org quote is referring to the verse in Galilean Aramaic.

"Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." This is the correct transliteration of the original words of Jesus Christ in Galilean Aramaic.

The Greek transliteration is sabachthani, not sh'wik-thani

Well done. It's like Legion didn't say anything.

 

[godnotgod]

Well done. It's like Legion didn't say anything.

I trust a native speaker of Aramaic far more than I do Legion or you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I trust a native speaker of Aramaic far more than I do Legion or you.

Not really. You trust someone who claims to be a native speaker of Aramaic. And in reality, you simply trust what you like and what to be true to begin with. I can quote sources until I'm blue in the face, native Aramaic speakers or not, and you wouldn't (and haven't) paid any attention whatsoever. It's all stuff you don't want to be true so you find whatever sources you like on the internet.

 

[godnotgod]

They aren't. Jesus wasn't a solar deity. He wasn't even a deity for some time after his death and has continually not been considered a deity by certain believers the whole time. Meanwhile, neither Mitra nor Mithras were ever considered to be people. And while there are similarities between Mithras and Jesus, these are either coincidental or the result of borrowings of pagan cults which we now know adapted to the spread of Christian ideas by adopting many of these ideas (just like the Christians did with Greek/Hellenistic philosophy).

Jesus not a solar deity?

"I am the light of the world"
John 8:12

This does not refer to his temporal human presence, but to his eternal essence.

It does not matter that Mitra and Mithras were not human, just as it does not matter that the eucharistic rite in Mithras was real while that of Jesus was symbolic. The point is the principle idea.

 

[godnotgod]

Not really. You trust someone who claims to be a native speaker of Aramaic. And in reality, you simply trust what you like and what to be true to begin with. I can quote sources until I'm blue in the face, native Aramaic speakers or not, and you wouldn't (and haven't) paid any attention whatsoever. It's all stuff you don't want to be true so you find whatever sources you like on the internet.

That is merely your slanted opinion, extrapolated from your own personal agenda.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Jesus not a solar deity?

"I am the light of the world"
John 8:12

A solar deity represents or is the sun, not a metaphorical light. John also says "in the beginning was the word" and that this word becomes flesh. He never calls Jesus the sun, though.

but to his eternal essence.

According to John, before Jesus became flesh he wasn't light but the word, and in fact specifically that ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων/"in him was life, and the life was the light of men". Seems like he wasn't the light, according to the authors of John, until he was living in the world. Before that he was the word, not the light.

It does not matter that Mitra and Mithras were not human, just as it does not matter that the eucharistic rite in Mithras was real while that of Jesus was symbolic. The point is the principle idea.

There was no Eucharistic rite, but if you mean eating bread and wine as symbols of flesh and blood, then both groups seem to have done that, although Christians first (obviously- there were no Hellenistic Mithraists to eat anything before Paul first mentions the last supper). However, the human part absolutely does matter as it was central to the word "Christ" and the role Jesus played both actually and that which he was retroactively said to play after his death. Also, Mithraists were polytheists. Like later Christian icography, the solar motifs found in art are rip-offs of Greek and Roman depictions of e.g., Apollo. The only thing Mithras had in common with his Persian "original" was the name. Pretty much everything else was a syncretic mix of Hellenistic religious symbolism and representation (including the Christ-Cult rip-offs).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That is merely your slanted opinion, extrapolated from your own personal agenda.

It's my opinion, yes, but borne out by the fact that you have literally posted anything and everything you find regardless of whether the person saying it can't even manage idiomatic English and is an ex-film student claiming to have learned the language of Jesus as a child. The only thing, besides 0 credentials or use of authoritative sources (or proof-reading and basic fact checking) your sources have in common is that they are all arguing for the same kind of nonsense. The difference between you and me is that you keep posting information you find from random websites on languages you can't read and on arguments you can't evaluate, while I am capable of evaluating them and pointing you to the arguments of others who can as well. You simply refuse to believe or even read these or even evaluate my questions or criticisms logically. You still haven't explained why the "Aramaic" (Syriac) version of the NT has the transliteration and translation of the Greek NT when all this means is that the same phrase is repeated twice. Instead, you came back with the fact that the Greek transliteration is one thing (which you gave in English, thereby making it an English transliteration) but that in "Galilean Aramaic" it is something else. Well, even if that were true guess what? There are not NTs written in Galilean Aramaic. Syriac isn't even Western Aramaic.

 

[godnotgod]

A solar deity represents or is the sun, not a metaphorical light. John also says "in the beginning was the word" and that this word becomes flesh. He never calls Jesus the sun, though.

According to John, before Jesus became flesh he wasn't light but the word, and in fact specifically that ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων/"in him was life, and the life was the light of men". Seems like he wasn't the light, according to the authors of John, until he was living in the world. Before that he was the word, not the light.

There is no difference between the Word and the flesh or the Word and the light. Jesus had a dual nature: that of flesh and spirit. When it was said that 'the Word became flesh', this is a reference to light manifesting itself as substance.

How can the Word not be light?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is no difference between the Word and the flesh or the Word and the light.

According to the authors of John there is. Jesus as a pre-existing entity is identified with wisdom and order, not light. The line specifically says that the word became flesh, while the light was life. Jesus as a living entity is identified as being the light and truth for humanity, while whatever was pre-existent about him, the logos, ceased to be the logos and became flesh.

When it was said that 'the Word became flesh', this is a reference to light manifesting itself as substance.

The light was life, while the word became living flesh. Yes, the logos is said to transform into material flesh, but it then ceases to be the logos and is the living man Jesus.

How can the Word not be light?

Because one is a metaphorical description of Jesus as the bearer of hope and truth, while the other is a description of Jesus' pre-existent form.

 

[godnotgod]

It shouldn't match "sabachtani" because the word for destiny, helqa/helqwt or, in Aramaic, חלשׁ/helesh, isn't the word in the "Aramaic" (Syriac) NT here. The word in Mark and Matthew is a verb, not a noun (ܫܒ&#1833, and here is in the perfect 2nd person masculine singular. It's ܫܒ݂ܰܩܬ݁ܳܢܝ or sabachtani. It means to leave, forsake, or desert.

Allow me to make a change in my original question, which I posted as re: the word 'destiny'. Alexander's statement is a verb, 'destine', not a noun:

Vic Alexander, with note: "34. And in the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice and said, "Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." That is, "My God, my God,* wherefore did you destine me?"* "

*15:34.3 Lit. Aramaic: "Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." This is the correct transliteration of the original words of Jesus Christ in Galilean Aramaic. Other transliterations indicate the second and third generation transliterations from Arabic and the Greek versions."

 

[godnotgod]

According to the authors of John there is. Jesus as a pre-existing entity is identified with wisdom and order, not light. The line specifically says that the word became flesh, while the light was life. Jesus as a living entity is identified as being the light and truth for humanity, while whatever was pre-existent about him, the logos, ceased to be the logos and became flesh.


The light was life, while the word became living flesh. Yes, the logos is said to transform into material flesh, but it then ceases to be the logos and is the living man Jesus.


Because one is a metaphorical description of Jesus as the bearer of hope and truth, while the other is a description of Jesus' pre-existent form.

This is the problem with the word 'became'. Nothing 'became' anything else.* The light and the flesh are always present as potential. They are only manifested. But when the Word 'became' flesh, it does not mean that one ceases, as you claim, and the other begins. Anyone who knows anything about Christianity knows that Jesus is portrayed as having a dual nature. Of course the Logos is still present, as evinced by Jesus's statement: 'Before Abraham was, I am'. If Jesus were not the Logos in the flesh, what he uttered, sans the interpolations, would have been limited to human understanding. The Absolute is not something that ever changes, as it is itself the Changeless. 'Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away'.

The Logos is the Light, manifesting as the flesh. IOW, the Light is itself wisdom, which is why, again, I continue to point to the East, both symbolically (the Sun rising) and the source of the teaching coming to the West. Yeshu is bringing the wisdom, the Light, from the East to the West.


27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Matthew 24:27 (NIV)

Well, we all know that lightning itself can come from any direction. The allusion to it coming from the East is a metaphor for the teaching, the Logos.

Anyway, the original point is that Mitra and Mithra are both solar deities, which is just one connection between them, a connection you say does not exist.

*It is for this very reason that Vic Alexander, in his translation, does not use this word, but uses instead the word 'manifested'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Allow me to make a change in my original question

Of course.

*15:34.3 Lit. Aramaic: "Eil, Eil, l'mana sh'wik-thani." This is the correct transliteration of the original words of Jesus Christ in Galilean Aramaic. Other transliterations indicate the second and third generation transliterations from Arabic and the Greek versions."

I'm not sure what your question is (there doesn't seem to be one). Galilean Aramaic is only known from the 3rd century onward. Matthew and Mark were both written in the 1st. By this time, we already have a Greek scrap of John that is a century old. We have no NT manuscripts written in Galilean Aramaic or in any other Western Aramaic dialect even after the 3rd century. The "Aramaic" manuscripts are all in various forms of Syriac. If you want transliterations of Matthew and Mark, look to Aramaic reconstructions like those of Casey, Meyer, Meier, Amira (a Marconite who wrote a Syriac grammar), or even Dalman or other 19th century founders of modern Aramaic studies whose works are freely available. There's probably even junk on Wikipedia about the Aramaic here.

 

[godnotgod]

According to the authors of John there is. Jesus as a pre-existing entity is identified with wisdom and order, not light.

Light is not wisdom and order?

'...and the light that I saw by was the light that I was, and the light that I was, was the light that I saw by.'

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Of course.

I'm not sure what your question is (there doesn't seem to be one). Galilean Aramaic is only known from the 3rd century onward. Matthew and Mark were both written in the 1st. By this time, we already have a Greek scrap of John that is a century old. We have no NT manuscripts written in Galilean Aramaic or in any other Western Aramaic dialect even after the 3rd century. The "Aramaic" manuscripts are all in various forms of Syriac. If you want transliterations of Matthew and Mark, look to Aramaic reconstructions like those of Casey, Meyer, Meier, Amira (a Marconite who wrote a Syriac grammar), or even Dalman or other 19th century founders of modern Aramaic studies whose works are freely available. There's probably even junk on Wikipedia about the Aramaic here.

Without getting into the notion of a 1st century Galilean Aramaic dialect that was written directly into text, can you now provide an English phonics pronunciation of the Aramaic verb-word 'destine'?, the point being that where Alexander used the word 'destine', I mistakenly used the word 'destiny'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Without getting into the notion of a 1st century Galilean Aramaic dialect that was written directly into text, can you now provide an English phonics pronunciation of the Aramaic verb-word 'destine'?, the point being that where Alexander used the word 'destine', I mistakenly used the word 'destiny'.

I already did that. The Aramaic verb is helqa/hleq/helesh (depending on the dialect and transliteration schema). The word that Alexander refers to is ܫܒ݂ܰܩܬ݁ܳܢܝ/Sabachtani (root sbq). It's the same word that both Matthew and Mark refer to.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Light is not wisdom and order?

No. One has roots in Greek/Hellenistic philosophy (among other things, including Judaism) and the other is a metaphor. However, this is totally irrelevant as it really couldn't matter less if Jesus was also some pre-existent "light" metaphor as he wasn't the sun or a solar deity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is merely your slanted opinion, extrapolated from your own personal agenda.

:clap

[Legion, he reads you like a book... er, crappy website]