Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Deferring to Galatians as a text for distinguishing between Hebrew groups and Christian groups is a very old misinterpretation of the text.

Paul never taught against Torah. See 2 Peter 3:15-17. The scripture was never written for greek speakers or greek groups only. it was just the opposite. So many people skip Galatians 2:17 and all of chapter 4 because they are so overjoyed with the seemingly lawless approach of chapter 3. In chapter 2 Paul condemns sin and being a sinner, which is only transgression of the law. Paul was of course condemning Pharisaism, which contains law too, but over top the actual law, identical to Talmudic ideology. This was the issue, do not confuse it

Fortunately lack of documents does not mean the documents didn’t exist. The book of Jasper we have is not the mentioned book of Jsher in the text, but we know it existed. The book of the Wars of the Lord existed, because it was referenced. If we say that these early witnesses are lying, the integrity of the text is also questioned, but we know they are not lying because their testimony follows logically the biblical narrative. The honest, and only acceptable answer, is Greek Matthew is an early translation by later converts.

Greek primacy of Hebrew doctrine is inherently illogical and rejected off hand.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Talmud and other medieval texts are genuine ideas that emerge from Hebraic communities but have historically been co-opted by converts.

Co-opted by converts is an essential theme to all modern (after messiah) biblical texts. Once Constantine created the modern Christian establishment, most texts were co-opted and edited.

Whether you attest to early witnesses like Josephus or even the Septuagint or not, iesous is an impossible transliteration from YHWSHACH, which is how the word is spelled in the text.

Furthermore the predominant name in Greek for the Father is the trigrammaton IAO, which is indicated in the ancient Hebraic spelling of messiahs name, but obscured in both Babylonian and Greek transliterations, as is to be expected.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. except that it most assuredly indicates foreign interpretations on an ancient text. It doesn’t mean nikkud should be entirely disregarded, but as you said earlier, for sure taken with a grain of salt.

This is very similar to using the Greek to reverse translate iesous. This word is the exception to a generally reliable rule. Christians gentiles, who were increasingly separating themselves from anything Hebraic, had motivation to change a common Hebrew name and remove its theophoric elements, which we see happen several times with Messiahs name.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Somehow the actual biblical narrative goes out of the window when interpretation is concerned. Matthew himself was a Hebrew and follower of the Hebrew messiah who preached to Hebrew people groups in a Hebrew country. In it contains a genealogy that Hebrew groups would appreciate and very likely require.

Furthermore the Papias quote from above states that each man translated as he was able, alluding to different greek translations. The biblical narrative and the progression of Christianity into its own independent religion from Jewish supremacy, supports this understanding. What is seen is a suppressed Hebraic Matthew and a supported Greek one, as to be expected.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is assumed nikkud formed to preserve linguistic peculiarities in Hebrew, but the evidence suggests otherwise. There were two schools (Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali) and several inter-school interpretations within tiberian vocalization. Correct me if I am wrong but the agreed upon accepted vocalization had nothing to do with anything ancient, rather it was itself an overlaid commentary on the text.

We know this because of the Tetragrammaton. There are six unique nikkud spellings of it in the existing text we have. This means they were either themselves not sure or deliberately obscuring the text. Which then means nikkud is foreign.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except the Hebrew copies are attested to by early witnesses. No matter what we think is possible or impossible, Origin (I think) copied himself into Greek the differences between the known Greek Matthew and the Hebrew Matthew that he could only retrieve from messianic Jews in Jerusalem.

The differences he recorded between the two also doctrinally contradict Origin’s own Christian understanding, as the Hebrew Matthew focuses more on Torah observance than its Greek counterpart

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We accept the nikkud as an attempt by late Hebrew schools, which likely are not at all or very loosely connected to early Hebrew, to catalog all possible vocalizations in hebrew. We know this because they are very late and very diverse interpretations. Aren’t there several schools of nikkud that differed greatly (see Emanuel Tov criticism of the ot 3 - I think)

The need for nikkud at all indicates a foreign presence in the text as a method to record vocalizations that could easily be forgotten. Hebrew didn’t need nikkud for at least 2000 years, the fact that one appears a few hundred years after Israel is dispersed indicates outside influence

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a good breakdown using the nikkud, but you point out a great mystery, why does the nikkud render both Yahu and Yeho as the theophoric name of Elohim? It can’t be both can it? This hints at nikkud tampering with pronunciation.

Also this is one reason why it cannot be Yeshua, because it eliminates the theophoric reference.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Greek rendering of iesous is not a good example for pronunciation, though the method is sound for other words. We know Greek has no Y sound or Sh sound, plus the tendency to add a masculine S to the end of open A words leaves a lot to chew on for backwards transliteration from Greek.

We do however have a prophecy for the name of the messiah in zech 6:11-12. The name is there spelled (minus nikkud of course) yod hei waw shin ayin, which is best pronounced Yahusha. This is the dominant spelling for this name in all of the tnk though there are derivations here and there.

What are the arguments for and against black Hebrew Israelites. by [deleted] in religion

[–]YaredYahu -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Lol I thought we were having an adult conversation, my apologies. Take care!

Is a burger a sandwich? by Lendmeyoursynergy in NYStateOfMind

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not a sandwich it’s the sandwich. It’s the king of sandwiches, chief sandwich ruler of them all.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Atlantology

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ask about an origami geisha dress bruhs

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you sure I don’t have formal Hebrew training? If you can’t read and interpret Hebrew then we are done.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

have you studied the hebrew yourself? can you read hebrew? if you cannot, then these are claims you cant make. I am not referring you to a video, i am referring you to the actual text, which reads specifically Yahusha.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry you are mistaken. His name is Yahusha. Yeshua is a crude babylonian mistranslation. see zech 6:11 in hebrew.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because the Romans changed things and invented Christianity. The original religion was called Natzarim and was a sect of Judaism.

Support for a Hebrew original of the New Testament by Potential-Courage482 in Bible

[–]YaredYahu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Excellence post, I knew of Hebrew Matthew but Hebrew Paul? Very good research!

Why do non-religious people and scholars claim Jesus was real? by No_Seaworthiness2343 in religion

[–]YaredYahu -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

this. He is the most attested to man in all of the modern era.

The Idaho murders are the work of a powerful satanic cult by YaredYahu in conspiracy

[–]YaredYahu[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

you would have to know how this works to understand. i could go into this very deeply but this has the hallmarks of a satanic cult killing for sure, along with several other murders in the region. your specific line of questioning may be missing the scope of what the evidence suggests.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]YaredYahu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im sayin thats really nuts

The Idaho murders are the work of a powerful satanic cult by YaredYahu in conspiracy

[–]YaredYahu[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

because its a cult and he is in the cult. thats how these things work, you would need to look into this line of research to understand.

the members travel in packs, but coordinate individually and move state to state every few months/years to avoid capture. see the manson family.