Exactly. It became lexicalized, as I said originally.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
John 1:1
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
Exactly. It became lexicalized, as I said originally.
Shermana
Heretic
Exactly, the word "Angel" which originally meant "Messenger" at some point became interchangeable with "god". That's what I was saying originally, so what's all this fuss about?
Yes, you did (although I'm stil not sure why you use that word). The question is how. If Geeraerts is correct, then both Hebrew had a word for "messenger/envoy" which also meant "angel", but Greek did not. It wasn't until the influence of Hebrew that connection between the Hebrew and Greek allowed for conceptual integration, and as a result the extention of aggelos to divine/angelic entities. But this brings us back to the following:
as well as the entire thrust of your paper. Because it rests almost in its entirety on mappings between languages (actually, as it seems you simply relied on English translations rather than actually looking at the Greek, it's mappings among three languages). In cognitive semantics, it's taken as a given that words don't refer to external reality (even a theological one) within a single language. Rather, they refer to concepts, and multiple different concepts arranged by (or around) prototypicality and conceptual domains. That's within a single language.
The problem here is that any translator of a Hebrew text into "koine" Greek necessarily has to deal with a loss in nuance and technicality. From the LXX all the way to Cyril, there is no clear distinction between terms like "sons of god" or "angels" and the various ways in which divine entities and concepts are rendered from Hebrew into Greek.
This is nothing new of course, but has been a part of language study, of course, as it goes back even before Saussure's langue & parole dichotomy (and the similar one of his contemporary Husserl- Ausdruck & Bedeutung). And outside of congitive semantics this view is ubiquitous: "one has only to consider the case of an individual word maison, say to see at once that there cannot possibly be a single deverbalised concept that corresponds exactly to a single word (house? home? Haus? Heim?) in other languages" (p. 144) of Weston's paper in Translation Today: Trends & Perspectives.
So why insist that צבא means "host" in a way that dynamis can too without (it seems) theological motivations but kosmos cannot, even though neither one means "host"? And more importantly, given your adoption of cognitive semantics, do you ignore the cognitive approach to grammar (some form of construction grammar), in which neither kosmos nor dynamis should be (or indeed can be accurately) analyzed in terms of lexemes ripped from the constructions in which they appear? Not simply the fact that this is a genitive construction, but also that it involves the apposition/contrast between two lexemes which share a great deal of conceptual overlap. Furthermore, not only does צבא generally relate to war and armies, and only in specific constructions when it is paired with certain words refer to a heavenly body/host, it and other similar terms are used without the consistancy you seem to imply to reconstruct your heirarchy and interpretation of Deuteronomy (as a colleague/critic of yours notes here). Given the ambiguities in the Hebrew terms/phrases, even if you are in fact correct in your interpretation of these (and the nature of Deut. 4 relative to 32), that doesn't mean that the very problematic process of rendering these naunces into Greek means much of anything simply because you picked a single English word to understand a far more complex construction in a language quite different from English and even more different from Hebrew.
Because it is used all the time in lexicography to mean exactly the same thing I use it to mean. The particular meaning becomes part of the lexicon. It becomes lexicalized. I really wish you would stop confusing your own ignorance for my tendentiousness.
Through consistent use over time with a particular meaning.
No, the Hebrew word also only meant "messenger." The "angel" sense developed over time and then did the same within the Jewish-Greek lexicon.
Not the influence of Hebrew, just the influence of Hebrew thought.
You're going to talk about the rest of my paper now? Why, you've wasted so much time belaboring two completely unimportant translation decisions.
Again you make that assumption despite my explicit and repeated assurance that that is not the case. Why do you feel the need to intentionally and conspicuously ignore my explanations and reassert your assumptions? Are you really that insecure that you need to pretend that I'm ignorant of the Greek so you can feel better about your own capacities with the language? I really see no other rhetorical point to you doing this, and you can't possibly think that you're being sneaky.
Any translator of any text from any language into any other language is going to experience that. There's nothing special in the transition from Greek to Hebrew.
That is a meaningless statement. It simply doesn't mean anything to identify "no clear distinction" between those terms and "the various ways in which divine entities and concepts are rendered from Hebrew into Greek"? Either you are not particularly adept at communicating whatever is bouncing around inside your head, or whatever is bounding around inside your head is nonsensical. Do you want to try to restate it in a way that makes sense, or are you just going to quietly move on?
And here you quote texts in an effort to say absolutely nothing of any relevance to this discussion. We're all tremendously impressed with how well read you are, but we would all appreciate it if you would actually address the points of my argument.
As I have already shown with three different well-respected lexica, dynamis absolutely can mean "host," both within the Septuagint and in the secular Greek corpora. I don't understand why you think you are fooling anyone by so flagrantly ignoring the evidence I have provided and asserting exactly what my evidence shows is not true.
And here you ignore that I have repeatedly pointed out that my analysis is the only one that actually fits the textual context. Nor have you even attempted to fit the words within their context. All you've done, really, is misrepresent the pluriformity of the translations techniques between the different books of the Hebrew Bible.
Which, as I have shown, and you have ignored, really has no bearing on my claims.
Which, as I have shown, and you have ignored, really has no bearing on my claims.
I prefer "friend," not "colleague/critic," and Mike's concerns with my paper are limited to a methodological choice that has nothing to do with any of your concerns, or even any of the claims of mine you are addressing. Again, you seem to be confusing your own naivety for a deficiency on my part. I have responded to all his concerns, and we have spoken personally about the matter numerous times since he published that post. I think you'd do better to just address my argument rather than try to marshal support from others.
You appear not to have read much of anything I've written, much less have understood it. Unless you can show me some sign in your next post that (1) you understand my concerns, (2) are able to respond, and (3) can refrain from this lengthy and nonsensical pedantry, I think I'll save myself the trouble of trying to beat my head against the brick wall that is your comprehension.
Not so long as you confuse etymology with conceptual domains and prototypicality, now. But even a decent grasp of Greek makes this apparent. It's one reason I found the generative approach (which too often sought to pidgeonhole languages into English categories) so inadequate and the cognitive linguistic framework so apt. The work of Lakoff, Talmy, Langacker, Sweester, Fillmore, etc., all fit Greek extraordinarily well in a way it seems impossible to miss. As Geeraerts notes in his intro chapter to his book on lexical semantics, "classical scholars naturally came across many intriguing instances of polysemy and semantic change. It is not a coincidence, from this perspective, that many of the earliest writers on semantic change were classical philologists." So while a former professor I had was a classical philologist, and didn't understand much of the technical aspects of what I wrote, she did know Greek far better than I and understood intuitively how senses were extended in Greek without recourse to any linguistic framework. What I referred to in terms of metaphor, schemata, conceptual prototypes, she (as well as the other Greek specialists) found to be more "well, duh" than anything else.
So no, you don't need cognitive linguistics to inform you regarding the affects of prototypicality in Greek and how senses of lexemes are extended in various ways. But you do need an adequate knowledge of Greek, at which point it becomes pretty basic and blatantly obvious. Nida & Louw's Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament may not be the best approach to lexical semantics, but they are correct at least in that 1) just because a word in English fits a particular usage in Greek doesn't make this part of the meaning of the Greek word & 2) we are dealing here with a language in which lexemes are far less important than many languages (especially English) and in the semantics of grammar become incredibly important. Ever since Dixon's work on Ergativity, and the analysis of "split-ergatives" as not Ergative at all but active/stative, we have had repeated analyses of PIE and Pre-IE which show the semantic and thematic (in terms of functional roles) of the cases, which (it is argued) are remnants from a time in which PIE was not a transitive language.
The prototypical meaning is "order. If you actually want an etymological argument, then we can look at comparitive & historical IE linguistics. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's groundbreaking work (translated by Johanna Nichols) Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans gives us not only the PIE root, but also the specific meanings in the daughter languages. For Greek, this is "order, world order". Buck's classic comparative grammar (supplemented but not replaced by Sihler's) informs us that, "[f]or the physical world, Greek philosophers introduced the term kosmos from the 'orderly arrangement' of the heavens." (p. 55).
Not yet moving away from etymology, but including now other obvious evidence we can turn to the verb. From Homer through patristic Greek (for the latter, see e.g., Lampe's A Patristic Greek Lexicon), the verb kosmeo means "to order" both in the sense "to set in order" as well as "to rule, command, regulate" and even "set an army in motion". Other words built around this root include kosmaridion or "governer of the universe" (cf. arche), kosmesis or "world creation", even...wait for it...kosmopoietikos or "creative" which the LSJ equates with dynamis.
In fact, apart from a pure frequency approach to either the verb or the noun alone (in which we can see that, for any period of time, the sense of "ordering" and "regulating" is far more apparanent than "ordornment") using e.g., the TLG, we have only to look at an extremely important way in which the Greek language worked: compounding. Although not quite like German, the Greeks regular tacked words together, often in novel ways, to mean something which was usually (and particularly if one traces it back in time) related to the meaning of the individual components (the exception being prepositional adfixes). So there is a reason that time and time again we can find kosm- or kosmo- tacked on to words to refer to things "world creation" or "well-ordered/well-regulated" or "commander of an army".
Then, looking just at the way kosmos is used in and around the time of the LXX (which is only an estimate anyway). This is why the TLG is so helpful, as we can narrow it down by century rather than just e.g., corpus or author. And we find indeed that the term most frequently is used to describe the cosmos itself (not it's arrangement or adornment), order/regulation, and the nominalized act of ordering/regulating along ruling/commanding entities. Of course, we don't need the TLG, as the LSJ makes this readily apparent by itself, but we can just to be thorough.
Finally, we come back to cognitive linguistics. What do we find? Well, that Greek works like every other language ever spoken on the planet, only more so in this sense: basic meanings are extended to related conceptual domains in a systematic way. Which is, indeed, the foundation of cognitive semantics. It's easy to see how "order, arrange" gets us "arranging what one wears" and hence "adornment" or "ornament". Likewise, it's easy to see how this gets us to "ordering an army" or "judicial/political order" or "cosmic order", but only as long as we recognize the "order/arrange/regulate" as the central conceptual domain whence these others originate.
Not naive. It seems rather hard to believe you understand "the dynamics of lexicography and semantics" as much as you say, particularly if you assert (as you do) that you have adopted a cognitive semantic approach.
And this supports what I said above. Not only was my case not about etymology but about prototypicality, but the LSJ isn't simply Volksetymologie. Otherwise we'd see Homer & Homeric usage dominate. It instead reflects a trend beginning with Reisig and continuing throughout the 19th century to attempt to understand the whole meaning of words not simply via diachronic analysis, or even primarily (as synchronic analysis plays more of a role, and thus the LSJ favors 5th-1st century far more than Homer, and probably more 5th-3rd).
As I anticipated, you have ignored the content of my concerns only to continue to pedantically wax philological about thoroughly undermined misrepresentation of my position and capacity with the scholarship. You've abandoned all the points I've made that have disproven your claims, and are instead only focusing on those issues that give you the smallest excuse to bloviate about a field with which you're obviously naively infatuated.
One of the central reasons cognitive semantics exists is in contrast to the view which dominated much earlier discussion of lexicology and linguistics and is behind the concept "lexicalized".
You state that are familiar cognitive semantics. Yet cognitive semantics rejects the idea of a "lexicon" (as, with cognitive linguistics in general, perhaps the most fundamental idea is the lexico-grammatical contiuum). The word "lexicalized" largely reflexs a compositional view of language. When it is used in cognitive semantics, it is not used to mean when "a particular meaning becomes part of the lexicon" (how could it, when from the start this idea of a distinct lexicon and lexical entries is viewed as thoroughly inadequate and flawed?). Phrases may be "lexicalized", or the meaning becomes conventionalized via grammatical AND lexical usage, etc. Take e.g., the word "drive". One might argue that "drive" as in "to drive a car" is an example of lexicalization. But what about the following:
She's driving me crazy
This is driving me up the wall
My kids are going to drive me to drink
Has the sense of "drive" meaning "to do something which affects another such that the result is a restricted range of mental and emotional states, but not one specific such state"? It's not lexicalized, because it depends upon a particular schema which is greater than any lexeme, but cannot simply be relegated to some "grammar" component.
Then you are in disagreement with Geeraerts.
I didn't say you weren't competent. You stated:
You could be the foremost authority on Greek in the world, but if you rely on a translation to make your argument, and further rely only on the translation and historical analysis to make your argument rather than offer an analysis of what the Greek constructions means (via linguistic analysis; see below), then it doesn't matter how competent you are.
There absolutely is. One has only to compare translations of Greek into Latin to see this. Both Latin and Greek use cases. Both use a very similar grammatical construal of number, gender, person, etc. So while things like the article pose a problem, this is nothing compared to languages (like Hebrew) which use an entirely different alignment system, person indicator, and even so basic a matter of time/tense.
Translation from Greek or to Greek has to deal with the radical underdetermination of the lexemes relative to use, as well as the comparatively high use of grammatical devices in semantic construal.
My apologies. I thought it would be clear given your first set of pointed responses, which included:
The paper you stated you read along with every other publication on the phrase from the last 150 years (quite a lot) concerns the types of phrases and the problems with translation, ambiguity, etc., I was referring to (in addition, that is, to the problems with Greek in particular here). Also, I already stated that saying dynamis is somehow a more adequate translation than the construction in Deut. 4 is to say one inadequate lexeme is somehow better than another just as inadequate. Neither mean "hosts", and both have within their conceptual domain the ideas necessary for the constructions used to convey what is needed.
One text, actually. But no matter. Your argument, from beginning to end, relies on ideas of translation and what this involves which include references to a particular understanding of languages (as have your posts). You talk about "idiomatic Greek" and using this as a yardstick to judge the faithfulness of translation, and consistently refer to the way in which your (or another's) rendering of the Greek either alters the meaning or focuses the "reader toward the desired understanding". At no time do you ever analyze the Greek from a construction grammar (or cognitive semantics) point of view. In fact, short of the use of providing English translations and the connotations inherent in them, you don't analyze the Greek at all. As I said to begin with, I don't know enough Hebrew to use my own knowledge to argue whether or not you captured some particular nuance of the Hebrew, still less if this is relevant. But Greek I do know. And as your argument systematically ignores, glosses over, or manipulates (unintentionally) the Greek to "influence the reader", your approach to translation and language period becomes extremely important.
"in the study of Greek lexicography an examination of the Greek expressions for meaning provides little or no insight, since these are also numerous and almost equally nebulous in significance, e.g., dynamis" p. 1 of Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. The second chapter makes this even more clear, and includes "the most important factor in decoding a text is the context (both linguistic and non-linguistic)." As you included nothing concerning the linguistic context in your entire paper, even outside of cognitive semantics we see this is problematic.
Showing that a word can mean something and showing that it does are two very different things. This is why I have repeatedly talked about cognitive linguistics, and responded to your claim to be familiar with cognitive semantics with suprise. Because what you do is similar to saying "'drive' means to take somebody in a car somewhere" and then assert that this means we should interpret "driving me up the wall" in terms of vertical motion up a wall in a motor vehicle. I have explained why your analysis (analyses, actually, but here I mean of kosmos) is misleading to say the least. In return, you have simply said "it can mean that" and refused to either deal with what I have said about the construction, or about linguistics, or about language, other than (mainly) to belittle or insult me. Which I understand (who wants to be told that their work is flawed by an outsider to the field?), but it doesn't make you correct.
Your response to my argument about the grammatical construction was:
Do you know what a "subjective genitive" (or an objective, or even a plenary or ambiguious mixture of both) construction is? And why etymology is so completely irrelevant here? Let's switch to English for clarity:
The doctor examined my elbow.
She elbowed her way through the crowd.
The MMA fighter wouldn't stop the repeated elbowing of his opponent.
The love of power is inherent in all.
The last example especially is the type of genitive construction I'm referring to. The "verbal aspect" of love (or elbow) has absolutely nothing to do with etymology. Lots and lots of words have both noun-like and verb-like forms. All that matters is whether or not a word can involve a verbal-like conceptualization (i.e., an atemporally conceived action, similar to an infinitive). The Greek kosmos clearly does, as it has a matching verb. Etymology couldn't matter less.
I did, actually. You insist on reading into these arguments I never made.
No, you didn't. You showed that you continue to misunderstand "etymology" and have added to this a misunderstanding of a very basic construction in Greek grammar.
Fair enough.
Which is why I referred to him. Because it addresses a side to your argument I cannot adequately evaluate as far as I'm concerned, even if I disagree.
The feeling is mutual.
Last edited:
In my defense, you hadn't posted your warning before I posted what you responded to. And as I said in my latest response, the feeling of being misunderstood is hardly one way (just the insults). Biblical/Jewish studies is your field. Cognitive science, language, and neuroscience is mine. Linguists and lexicographers (and philosophers of language) have argued for centuries over what the right approach is to language and meaning, yet this has never meant that everyone had to know all the same languages, nor come from the same background. I have freely submitted that you know more about Hebrew than I. And more about the non-linguistic aspects of your arguments. What I have repeatedly tried to get across, and what any good translator would agree is true, is that if your approach to languages and texts is flawed to begin with, then it doesn't matter how much you know about Urgaritic deities and their relation to the early Jewish cosmology/theology. Instead of addressing this point, you have continually misunderstood it and my reasons for saying why your approach can't be adequate by e.g. calling everything "etemology" or writing off responses as not addressing your points. Your points rely on your understanding of both the translation process and of the languages in question, including Greek.
So what? You shouldn't need a warning to force you to stop ignoring my points and to honestly engage my arguments.
I wasn't ignoring your points. However, for each of my posts, I generally got several posts I had to reply to, and never got the time to fully catch up.
Most importantly, though, I don't think you ever understood what I was saying enough to realize that I was addressing your points. All of them, actually. Again, your argument rests entirely on two types (classes of) knowledge:
1) Your knowledge of the dyanmics of Jewish culture and the interplay between it and other cultures.
2) Your approach to language and translation.
What I have argued is simply that the first cannot get you the conclusion you do (especially when it comes to the LXX version of Deuteronomy) without the second. Further, I have argued that your approach to language and translation is rather fundamentally inadequate or seriously problematic because:
1) You do not even attempt to explain the linguistic properties of the constructions (and the lexemes internal to them) you rely on as evidence, rendering all such evidence either worthless as is, or wrong.
2) You approach the translation to Greek (and/or the Greek to English) in a overly casual way. For example, showing what a term can be and not only asserting this is evidence of anything, but that it can somehow support your argument.
You have belittled, mocked, ignored, and/or regarded as meaningless every argument I have made about the problems with your approach, from general statements like the above, to far more detailed. But what you have addressed (and dismissed as meaningless) has consistently ignored any actual argument I've made by making it into something it isn't (etymological fallacies when I had said nothing whatsoever about etymology, or completely misunderstanding a basic property of genitive constructions and dimissing these because of something about "verbal aspects" which is neither relevant nor related to what I said).
You accuse me of not addressing your points. What I tried to say (once more) in my last post was about the reason you think this to be the case. It feels as if you are almost trying to avoid understanding what I'm saying (as I don't think you either naive or incompetent).
Basically, if you took a bit longer to actually read what I have said, and make sure you understand it rather than rush to dimiss a point I never read, then we could have a far more constructive dialogue. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong once I believe someone has demonstrated this. However, you haven't really even tried to do so, because while accusing me of not addressing you, you have (perhaps in your haste to point this out) not addressed point I've made.
Avoice
Active Member
Encarta Dictionary
I can see applying Coldwell's rule in verses like John 1:49 where the wording in English is clumsy at the least. However, John 1:1 makes sense either way and a literal reading of the verse and translation of the word order exactly as it is in the Greek is more in line with Hebrew and most Greek scripture. I think John said exactly what he meant with no intent that Jesus was God or that the Idea was God but that God was both and more than either.
In verse 49 The translation is:
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Joh 1:49 ἀπεκρίθη Ναθαναήλ καὶ λέει αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ
Answered Nathaniel and spoke [to] him Rabbi you are the son [of] the
Θεοῦ, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ.
God, you are the King [of] the Israel.
There is nothing easy about the translation except the proper names and Rabbi.
John 1:1 is very plain:
Joh 1:1 ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν
in beginning was the word, likewise the word was
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
toward the God,therefore God was the Word.
IMO John 1:1 is generally and heavily influenced even in translation by Trinitarian thought.
I can see applying Coldwell's rule in verses like John 1:49 where the wording in English is clumsy at the least. However, John 1:1 makes sense either way and a literal reading of the verse and translation of the word order exactly as it is in the Greek is more in line with Hebrew and most Greek scripture. I think John said exactly what he meant with no intent that Jesus was God or that the Idea was God but that God was both and more than either.
In verse 49 The translation is:
Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Joh 1:49 ἀπεκρίθη Ναθαναήλ καὶ λέει αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ
Answered Nathaniel and spoke [to] him Rabbi you are the son [of] the
Θεοῦ, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ.
God, you are the King [of] the Israel.
There is nothing easy about the translation except the proper names and Rabbi.
John 1:1 is very plain:
Joh 1:1 ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν
in beginning was the word, likewise the word was
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
toward the God,therefore God was the Word.
IMO John 1:1 is generally and heavily influenced even in translation by Trinitarian thought.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
The greeks didnt use a or an in their written language. One had to know where they were to be placed when translating to another language to keep Gods word in harmony. And it is clear in every single translation ever made that Jesus taught-- the one who sent him( John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD( John 17:1-6)
That means an a belongs in the last line of John 1:1-- a god( small g) it was not calling the word( Jesus) the God. Otherwise Jesus would have lied at John 17:1-6, and we all know that he didnt--in fact Paul taught the same truth- 1 cor 8:6) That is how we can be confident that these words of Jesus are 100% truth-John 20:17,, rev 3:12--Jesus has a God.
Avoice
Active Member
Is this a canned response? Seems like I saw it before. I'm saying that Colwell should not be applied to the Greek here as the third clause could stand on its own as a sentence.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
Most humans dont know that fact about the greek written language. I have posted it before.
Ivan-Michael
Member
Good point.
Reason. Who does the REASONING?
Us, if we could.
Where is GOD?
It is not only out there in the sky, it is also inside your head.
The LORD (YHVH) is between our legs, 7th chakra, lord 7, El Sheva.
The Sun is Christos-God, the Father, the Mind, the logos, we have that in our heads (Pineal gland) but it is dormant and confused in 'dream land',
The procreative 'life force' is on Earth-Lord, sex, pain, forgetfulness, jealousy, death.
Our words supposed to come from our minds, from God, not from our emotions which are the realm of Lord.
The History Of John ( 2 - 99 A.D. ) ~ John , one if the first disciples of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) was the son of Zebedee and the author of the fourth Gospel , called the Gospel of John . He had great spiritual insight and was referred to as the the disciple and an apostle whomm The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) loved . The name John ( Yuwhanna ) , come from the Arabic , root word '' Hanna '' which means '' To Long For '' .
John son of Zebedee , was to receive the book about the '' Long Awaited '' Messiah , Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , and the last and Seal of The Prophet Mustafa Muhammad Al Amin ( Pbuh ) ( 570 - 632 A.D. ) Prophet Mustafa Muhammad Al Amin ( Pbuh ) was called the Comforter ( Ahmad ) in the Book of John ( Refer to the Book of John 14 ; 16 , 25 , 26 ; 16 ; 7 )
.
John son of Zebedee ( Zabadiy ) was a Fisherman in the town of Bethsaida on the north shore of the sea of Galilee . Thus , he spoke the Palestinian , Galilean , and Aramic ; form of Arabic not Greek or Latin . John mother was Salome , Saluwma -arabic ) who was given in marriage to Zebedee by her father Joseph , Yuwsuf - arabic ( 90 B.C. - 29 A.D. ) This Joseph was the husband of Mary ( 6 B.C. - 90 A.D. ) The mother of Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) and the adopted father of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) Prior to marrying Mary .
Joseph was married to a woman name Halsa ( 35 B.C. - 28 A.D. ) Halsa bore him seven children Four Sons and Three Dauthers . These are their names . 1 . James ( Ya'quwb - arabic 22 B.C. - 62 A.D. ) 2 . Simeon ( Sim'aan -arabic 17 B.C. - 46 A.D. ) , 3 . Jude ( Yahuwdaa - arabic 14 B.C. - 64 A.D. ) , 4 . Joses ( Yuwsiy - arabic 19 B.C. - 57 A.D. ) , 5 . Martha ( Martaa - arabic 13 - B.C. 39 A.D. ) , 6 . Esther ( Istiyr - arabic 15 - B.C. - 50 A.D. ) , 7 . Salome ( Saaluwma - arabic 16 B.C. - 50 A.D. ) .
Joses also called '' Barnabas '' was a faithful and devout disciple to The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . He was also his half brother . He recorded The Book of Barnabas in the year 54 A.D. ( Acts 4 ; 35 , Matthew 13 ; 55 ) Beside John , Zebedee and Salome bore another son whose name was James ( Ya'quwb - arabic ) , James ( 2 B.C. - 46 A.D. ) also became a disciple of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . They like their father , grew up to be fishermen by trade on the Sea of Galilee . John , son of Zebedee was a nephew of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , through his mother Salome . Salome was The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . Half sister ( Mark 15 ; 40 ) .
Prior to becoming disciple of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , James and John were following of Yahya ( John the Baptist , 6 - 36 A.D. Pbuh ) who was their cousin . They were also amongst the first whom The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , united to follow him . Although it was not until later that they were called to permanent discipleship .
John was very close to The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) .This can he seen by his title '' The Disciple whom The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , Loved '' ( John 19 ; 26 , 21 ; 2 - 7 , 20 ; 2 , 21 ; 20 ) and by his positioning at the table darling the last supper next to The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , ( John 13 ; 23 - 25 ) . He was also entrusted with the care of Mary ( The Mother of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . John , along with his brother James ( 22 B.C. - 62 A.D. ) . was also present at the transfigration of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , on the Mount of Olives
John lived until the age of 97 died a natural death . John and his brother James were called '' The Sons of Thunder '' because of the way they propagated the doctrine of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , Below are several references to both James and John ( sons of Salome and Zebedee ) . They both played a very importans role in the propagation of The Teaching of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , Refer To ; Matthew 4 ; 21 , 10 ; 2 - 3 ; 13 ; 55 , 17 ; 1 , Mark 1 ; 19 - 29 ; 3 ; 17 ; 5 ; 37 , 6 ; 3 , 9 ; 2 ; 10 ; 35 ; 10 ; 41 ; 13 ; 3 ; 14 ; 33 ; 15 ; 40 ; 16 ; 1 , Luke 5 ; 10 ; 8 ; 51 ; 9 ; 28, 54 ; 24 ; 10 .
The preceding Quotes substantiate the Close Relationship that The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , had with James and John . More than one John is mentioned in The New Tastament . There is also a John who was the son of Zacharias . He was known as Yahya ( John the Baptist ) . Yahya ( John the Baptist Pbuh ) son of Zacharias; was born in 6 A.D. He was a cousin of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) and should not be confused with John , son of Zebedee . Yahya ( John the Baptist Pbuh ) was of a priestly birth , from the family of Imram of the Tribe of Levi .
He was also the forerunner of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , meaning that he prepared the people for his coming ( John 1 ; 26 - 27 ) . Yahya ( John the Baptist Pbuh ) was also the reincarnation of The Prophet Elijah ( Pbuh ) who according to prophecy , was to come before the Messiah of Israel ( Refer to the Book of Luke 1 ; 13 , 17 ) .
John son of Zebedee , was to receive the book about the '' Long Awaited '' Messiah , Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , and the last and Seal of The Prophet Mustafa Muhammad Al Amin ( Pbuh ) ( 570 - 632 A.D. ) Prophet Mustafa Muhammad Al Amin ( Pbuh ) was called the Comforter ( Ahmad ) in the Book of John ( Refer to the Book of John 14 ; 16 , 25 , 26 ; 16 ; 7 )
.
John son of Zebedee ( Zabadiy ) was a Fisherman in the town of Bethsaida on the north shore of the sea of Galilee . Thus , he spoke the Palestinian , Galilean , and Aramic ; form of Arabic not Greek or Latin . John mother was Salome , Saluwma -arabic ) who was given in marriage to Zebedee by her father Joseph , Yuwsuf - arabic ( 90 B.C. - 29 A.D. ) This Joseph was the husband of Mary ( 6 B.C. - 90 A.D. ) The mother of Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) and the adopted father of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) Prior to marrying Mary .
Joseph was married to a woman name Halsa ( 35 B.C. - 28 A.D. ) Halsa bore him seven children Four Sons and Three Dauthers . These are their names . 1 . James ( Ya'quwb - arabic 22 B.C. - 62 A.D. ) 2 . Simeon ( Sim'aan -arabic 17 B.C. - 46 A.D. ) , 3 . Jude ( Yahuwdaa - arabic 14 B.C. - 64 A.D. ) , 4 . Joses ( Yuwsiy - arabic 19 B.C. - 57 A.D. ) , 5 . Martha ( Martaa - arabic 13 - B.C. 39 A.D. ) , 6 . Esther ( Istiyr - arabic 15 - B.C. - 50 A.D. ) , 7 . Salome ( Saaluwma - arabic 16 B.C. - 50 A.D. ) .
Joses also called '' Barnabas '' was a faithful and devout disciple to The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . He was also his half brother . He recorded The Book of Barnabas in the year 54 A.D. ( Acts 4 ; 35 , Matthew 13 ; 55 ) Beside John , Zebedee and Salome bore another son whose name was James ( Ya'quwb - arabic ) , James ( 2 B.C. - 46 A.D. ) also became a disciple of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . They like their father , grew up to be fishermen by trade on the Sea of Galilee . John , son of Zebedee was a nephew of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , through his mother Salome . Salome was The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . Half sister ( Mark 15 ; 40 ) .
Prior to becoming disciple of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , James and John were following of Yahya ( John the Baptist , 6 - 36 A.D. Pbuh ) who was their cousin . They were also amongst the first whom The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , united to follow him . Although it was not until later that they were called to permanent discipleship .
John was very close to The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) .This can he seen by his title '' The Disciple whom The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , Loved '' ( John 19 ; 26 , 21 ; 2 - 7 , 20 ; 2 , 21 ; 20 ) and by his positioning at the table darling the last supper next to The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , ( John 13 ; 23 - 25 ) . He was also entrusted with the care of Mary ( The Mother of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) . John , along with his brother James ( 22 B.C. - 62 A.D. ) . was also present at the transfigration of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , on the Mount of Olives
John lived until the age of 97 died a natural death . John and his brother James were called '' The Sons of Thunder '' because of the way they propagated the doctrine of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , Below are several references to both James and John ( sons of Salome and Zebedee ) . They both played a very importans role in the propagation of The Teaching of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , Refer To ; Matthew 4 ; 21 , 10 ; 2 - 3 ; 13 ; 55 , 17 ; 1 , Mark 1 ; 19 - 29 ; 3 ; 17 ; 5 ; 37 , 6 ; 3 , 9 ; 2 ; 10 ; 35 ; 10 ; 41 ; 13 ; 3 ; 14 ; 33 ; 15 ; 40 ; 16 ; 1 , Luke 5 ; 10 ; 8 ; 51 ; 9 ; 28, 54 ; 24 ; 10 .
The preceding Quotes substantiate the Close Relationship that The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , had with James and John . More than one John is mentioned in The New Tastament . There is also a John who was the son of Zacharias . He was known as Yahya ( John the Baptist ) . Yahya ( John the Baptist Pbuh ) son of Zacharias; was born in 6 A.D. He was a cousin of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) and should not be confused with John , son of Zebedee . Yahya ( John the Baptist Pbuh ) was of a priestly birth , from the family of Imram of the Tribe of Levi .
He was also the forerunner of The Messiah Yashu'a , Isa , Jesus ( Pbuh ) , meaning that he prepared the people for his coming ( John 1 ; 26 - 27 ) . Yahya ( John the Baptist Pbuh ) was also the reincarnation of The Prophet Elijah ( Pbuh ) who according to prophecy , was to come before the Messiah of Israel ( Refer to the Book of Luke 1 ; 13 , 17 ) .
Shermana
Heretic
john 1:1
Which version is that an image of, the Emphatic Diaglot?
Ivan-Michael
Member
Geneology can be easily made up, watch the film 1612.
If, on the assumption that these characters were invented, then it is just a story, a fiction, a fantasy.
However, let's assume that these characters did exist in real time at some point, can we prove it?
Very unlikely.
We are told many things and evidence is in pretty low supply, why?
Perhaps because the books did not intend to teach History but rather a way of being, how the mind works, how to manipulate others and how not to be manipulated, the Law, all inserted into a story.
Hey you can Agree or Disagree I'm not here to convert anyone , I'm just shareing I careless what one accept , Agree / Disagree with really !!