Search results

It seems that the authors of some Judaic apocrypha and after them the author of the Epistle of Jude did not know about this your concept.

your article is very extensive, you need to be able to write briefly. brevity is the soul of wit.

The sons of God in Genesis 6 (if we compare with the epistle of Jude 6) are angels - " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day". The legend of the conclusion of the...

The biblical canon of the Old Testament was formed by the end of the first century, such literature as the Book of Jubilees, the books of Enoch, the Covenants of the twelve patriarchs, and others were revered on a par with the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible, which later entered the Canon...

you say justly if we recognize that the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus was in Greek. But the dialogue could have taken place and in the Aramaic. I think in this case the author of the Gospel deliberately used the ambiguous ἄνωθεν instead of πάλιν.

Yes, probably author of Gospel, who writting in Greek, for the understanding of this phrase in one and in another sense, intentionally and purposely used ἄνωθεν for πάλιν, it is his author's intent

The conversation (if it is historical) could have occurred in the Aramaic. If so, it was about the second birth (birth again, new birth). But the evangelist reproduced it in Greek and intentionally used a word with a double meaning so that the second birth could be understood as the birth from...

with syrᵖᵃˡ and syrᶜ (3:7) have from above also syrh (Syriac Harklian version )

ܕܪܫ = ܕܪܝܫ

first word is to beget , second - from, third - the begining , Burkitt translate this phrase born anew yes, it have lacuna, see 3:7

I looked at these Syriac sources, they are available, syrᵖ and syrS (Sinaiticus in 3:3) have anew(again) - ܡܢ ܕܪܝܫ (s - ܡܢ ܕܪܫ ) syrᵖᵃˡ and syrᶜ (3:7) have from above - ܡܢ ܠܥܠ

no, from the Syriac versions only Curetonian supports meaning from above, in syriac was used a different terminology to denote one and the other meaning, I by the way quoted it in my previous post. For example Etheridge's English Peshitta translation: 3:3 Jeshu answered and said to him, Amen...

most likely in Jn. 3.3 and 3.7 it says about the birth of anew (not about the birth from above) although in Greek it turns out two meanings, but judging by the answer of Nicodemus, Jesus spoke about the birth anew. We can see how the ancient translators interpreted this place and translated it...

many so trusted supposedly "Holy Spirit", and there were such sects, God forbid. It is better to learn Greek and Hebrew, although it is necessary to understand what is going on there. How can we believe "on Bible basis", and yet do not know what is this "basis"? if you are a believer and build...

There may be two answers, either Jesus and Nicodemus spoke in Greek (this is possible, but unlikely), or this conversation was compiled by the evangelist in Greek, and he (the gospel writer) did not care that this conversation was to take place on Aramaic or Hebrew.

frankly speaking, what you write and your like-minded people here is some incomprehensible newly appeared Gnosticism mixed with the ideas of monarchianism and modalism (at the moment I can not yet classify exactly the type of your false teaching).

There are the literal expressions and in relative sense. And in your case, spoken in a relative sense, you perceive literally. The fact is that not only in Jesus, but also in believers according to the Scriptures, God-Father, Son and Spirit are live inside (in a certain sense), believers are...

I think if the Bible authors wanted to say that Jesus is a converted God-Father (YHWH), they would have done it distinctly, and that would be understandable to 100% of Christians.

probably 90% of Christians read some other Bible and see in it something else on the subject under discussion

It is advisable to understand the theological language of biblical writers, taking into account the ideological background in Judaism of that period. Because you mix your own concept with the biblical and try to bind the biblical authors to your conclusions, this is a fraught venture.