Jesus killed the law causing enmity to cease

[just-me]

This book and others like it have the same problem you have, they cannot produce the MSS evidence to prove their claim. All they have is speculation and conjecture upon which to build their arguments.

I'm not arguing, even though others have started one. The book I refer to doesn't contradict the KJV which is my favorite. Why not study different interpretations of scripture as long as they don't conflict with the truth? With this said, King James was no saint. This book, that I now have, gives greater clarity to certain words that were used during the time period that the New Testament was written. It is not the main Bible that I read. I don't understand the argument over translations coming up all the time. This thread is not about what translation of the Bible is the best or worst. There are many I'm sure you have no problem with.

 

[just-me]

The Septuagint was a translation of the OT into Greek several hundred years before the birth of Christ.

Jesus and the apostles quoted the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew.

Did I say they did? I should have said the Old Testament Law and Prophets as we know it today which was originally written in Hebrew.

The Romans used Latin for official communication, but Greek was the common language of the Empire. The Septuagint written during the time of the Greek domination was the Old Testament Law and Prophets as we know it today which was written in Hebrew. That's what the Apostles, and Jesus refer to in all of their teachings when quoting scripture. As one who believes about Jesus all the things orthodox Christians do, it would not impact my faith one jot or tittle if Jesus spoke Hebrew rather than Aramaic, or Greek rather than Hebrew. Thus I am not caught up in the maelstrom of a language debate.

​

 

[oldhermit]

Jesus and the apostles quoted the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew.

That is a possibility especially since some of the things he refers to can be found only in the LXX but, the LXX was generally used in the Synagogues by the Hellenistic Jews who generally spoke Greek as their first language. The LXX was created by the Hellenistic Jews for Hellenistic Jews. Since Jesus and the apostles were not Hellenists and worshiped in Jerusalem it is more likely that they used the Hebrew scrolls.

 

[oldhermit]

I'm not arguing, even though others have started one. The book I refer to doesn't contradict the KJV which is my favorite. Why not study different interpretations of scripture as long as they don't conflict with the truth? With this said, King James was no saint. This book, that I now have, gives greater clarity to certain words that were used during the time period that the New Testament was written. It is not the main Bible that I read. I don't understand the argument over translations coming up all the time. This thread is not about what translation of the Bible is the best or worst. There are many I'm sure you have no problem with.

I agree abut the issue of using multiple translation. I use them myself. The only thing I was challenging is the contention that the original NT MSS were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[Elin]

I have this book. It contains all the books we have in any New Testament translations. Most of what I have quoted are verbatim from this New Testament.
It concentrates on the original script from the Peshitta dialect of Aramaic. Just thought I'd share.

The Romans used Latin for official communication, but
Greek was the common language of the Empire. The Septuagint written during the time of the Greek domination was the Old Testament Law and Prophets as we know it today which was written in Hebrew.
That's what the Apostles, and Jesus refer to in all of their teachings when quoting scripture. As one who believes about Jesus all the things orthodox Christians do, it would not impact my faith one jot or tittle if Jesus spoke Hebrew rather than Aramaic, or Greek rather than Hebrew. Thus I am not caught up in the maelstrom of a language debate.

If the OT Greek text is good enough for Jesus and the apostles, and if the Peshitta Aramaic
is the same as the Greek text of the NT, why even bring it up?

What does it have to do with anything in the Greek NT?

 

[just-me]

I agree abut the issue of using multiple translation. I use them myself. The only thing I was challenging is the contention that the original NT MSS were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

I don't think the NT was written in Hebrew. The Septuagint was re-written as I understand in AD around the time of Constantine. I do believe however that there were a number of languages used during the time of Jesus and the apostles.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modern research.
Christians in Palestine eventually rendered portions of Christian Scripture into their dialect of Aramaic; these translations and related writings constitute "Christian Palestinian Aramaic". The language became the tongue of the entire eastern wing of the church, from about the third century C.E. down until well past the Muslim conquest.

Now maybe we can get bak to the original thought of this thread. LOL whew!

 

[oldhermit]

Yea, that probably answers why the Peshitta showed up in the second century.

 

[Femalelamb]

It's not a language debate. I think it's about learning what the original meaning of the words first writen really were. I could give you examples, but you have to be willing to realize that these studies are real and important as well as the original meanings of these words have not been lost by the Jewish people, so learning from them is wise, indeed. I until not to long ago began studying and finding out small imperfections from the KJV and other translations from the KJV as well as many in the English language are leaving out small parts that can leave for confusion and misinterpretation. Where as learning the original language leaves a lot less room. We must all be wiling to admit we could miss God. We must all learn to sharpen one another and learn from each other in humility. Why not go pray and research for yourselves as I'm encouraging. It has been a wonderful eye opening and freeing experience for myself. And I love the journey in the Word again even more. Which isn no died bonus.

 

[just-me]

1 Peter 2:5 (AENT) And you are also, as living stones, are built and become spiritual temples and Set Apart priests for the offering of spiritual scarifies, acceptable before Elohim through Y'shua the Mashiyach.

Side note
The spiritual component of sacrifice is much more important than what is being sacrificed; otherwise it would have no more significance than a backyard barbecue. A sacrifice is evaluated by spiritual content that is elucidated in Torah, the prophets and through Jesus Messiah. The surrender of one's will, peace offerings, bountiful offerings, thanksgiving offerings, mercy offerings, or sacrifices to establish resolve or new direction, congregational sacrifices, national sacrifices, sacrifices towards being "set apart" (holy), or sacrifices to aid purity of thought and attitude are all potential "spiritual sacrifices." "Spiritual Sacrifices" unto YHWH are "Set Apart" by the intent of the heart and are distinct from the sacrifices towards the physical gods of materialism, relativism or religious identity. All authentic spiritual sacrifices have components of righteousness, judgment, justice, mercy and faith; they are not cerebral, but spiritual, neither are they done in word only but in deed (visible), and they demonstrate the spiritual intent within the heart.

Romans 12:1 (AENT) I plead to you, therefore, my brothers, by the mercies of Elohim, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, Set Apart and acceptable to Elohim by a reasonable service of him.

1 Corinthians 15:46 (AENT) And the spiritual was not first; but the animal, and then the spiritual.

 

[Femalelamb]

I made a comment but did some research and re read your post. I think I misunderstood. So nevermind.??????

 

[just-me]

I made a comment but did some research and re read your post. I think I misunderstood. So nevermind.

Not a problem. I thought that your post was very well put and was deserving of a rep point. We'll get back on track in relation to the thread title (God willing of course)

I envite you to read the entire thread, or at least my input/posts and join in if you care to. GBU

 

[Grandpa]

I'm not arguing, even though others have started one. The book I refer to doesn't contradict the KJV which is my favorite. Why not study different interpretations of scripture as long as they don't conflict with the truth? With this said, King James was no saint. This book, that I now have, gives greater clarity to certain words that were used during the time period that the New Testament was written. It is not the main Bible that I read. I don't understand the argument over translations coming up all the time. This thread is not about what translation of the Bible is the best or worst. There are many I'm sure you have no problem with.

The KJV is my favorite too. I refer to it as the "real" bible when I talk to my daughter about it. Her favorite is the NIV.

When the Lord first started opening the scriptures to me he used pictures to describe what was happening. Which is what I understand the Hebrew language is like? A picture language? I don't know Hebrew except for a few words. So I suppose in that fashion the Lord could have worked with any translation as the description of the pictures He was showing me.

Which is why languages and debates over which version is the "real" version doesn't interest me. God can use any language and any version to get His Point across.

 

[Femalelamb]

Awe shucks. Lol I didn't even know I could get reputation points. Ha ha

 

[Femalelamb]

I'm still very new here. Im not sure I can read the original thread or how to get to it. Yes, very new.

 

[just-me]

I'm still very new here. Im not sure I can read the original thread or how to get to it. Yes, very new.

Look at the bottom right hand corner of your screen and you will see right above the window to post in, and the "Bible Discussion Forum" that says pages 21 of 21 <<First < and so on. Click the (<<First) and it will take you to the beginning of the thread. then you can scroll and click on the next page and read whatever you want. I'm being somewhat factitious in the Opening Post. When addressing another person, and you are responding to what they wrote, you can reply with their quote by clicking "Reply With Quote", and then put your comment in as you like.

 

[Elin]

It's not a language debate. I think it's about learning what the original meaning of the words first writen really were. I could give you examples, but you have to be willing to realize that these studies are real and important as well as the original meanings of these words have not been lost by the Jewish people, so learning from them is wise, indeed. I until not to long ago began studying and finding out small imperfections from the KJV and other translations from the KJV as well as many in the English language are leaving out small parts that can leave for confusion and misinterpretation. Where as learning the original language leaves a lot less room. We must all be wiling to admit we could miss God. We must all learn to sharpen one another and learn from each other in humility. Why not go pray and research for yourselves as I'm encouraging. It has been a wonderful eye opening and freeing experience for myself. And I love the journey in the Word again even more. Which isn no died bonus.

Are you learning the Greek of the NT?

 

[just-me]

The KJV is my favorite too. I refer to it as the "real" bible when I talk to my daughter about it. Her favorite is the NIV.

When the Lord first started opening the scriptures to me he used pictures to describe what was happening. Which is what I understand the Hebrew language is like? A picture language? I don't know Hebrew except for a few words. So I suppose in that fashion the Lord could have worked with any translation as the description of the pictures He was showing me.

Which is why languages and debates over which version is the "real" version doesn't interest me. God can use any language and any version to get His Point across.

Yes indeed, and I think He has preserved enough for us to be able to find the truth in Him. He would NEVER let us hang out to dry. His promises are sure and true in detail. AMEN!!

 

[Elin]

The KJV is my favorite too. I refer to it as the "real" bible when I talk to my daughter about it. Her favorite is the NIV.

When the Lord first started opening the scriptures to me he used pictures to describe what was happening. Which is what I understand the Hebrew language is like? A picture language? I don't know Hebrew except for a few words. So I suppose in that fashion the Lord could have worked with any translation as the description of the pictures He was showing me.

Which is why languages and debates over which version is the "real" version doesn't interest me. God can use any language and any version to get His Point across.

The real NT version is the Greek text.

 

[just-me]

The fruit without the root is vain indeed. The root produces fruit that is motivated by the faith in the root. We are grafted into the olive tree that has the root to produce the fruit. Call this fruity if you want. Facts are facts.

One marked difference between the faith of our fathers as conceived by the fathers and the same faith as understood and lived by their children is that the fathers were concerned with the root of the matter, while their present-day descendants seem concerned only with the fruit. The Root of the Righteous
by A. W. Tozer

 

[peacefulbeliever]

CONTEXT: Eph 2:11-13
"You who are Gentiles by birth. . .were excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise. . .but now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near. . .

TEXT: Eph 2:14-16
he. . .has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God thhrough the cross."

The enmity was between Jew and Gentile--not between the law and mankind--because of the law which made Gentiles unclean to the Jews.

In abolishing the law with its commandments and regulations, which was the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, Jesus created in himself one new man out of the two (Jews and Gentiles), thus making peace between them as well as reconciling the two to God, all through the cross, by which Jesus put to death both
a) the hostility between Jew and Gentile, and
b) the enmity between mankind (both Jew and Gentile) and God.

The enmity of Eph 2:14-18 is not between man and the law.

I have to say that I never understood this section of scripture in this light . . . and honestly, I questioned it . . .

So I read and re-read . . . and when Just-me brought up the Aramaic text - I went to the Lamsa Bible [from the Aramaic of the Peshitta] to read this section again . . . LIGHT BULB moment!

3:11-18 - [to the Gentiles] Wherfore remember that you were Gentiles in the flesh from the beginning, and you were called Uncircumcision, differing from that which is called Circumcision which is the work of the hands in the flesh. At that time you were without Christ, being aliens to the customs of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without god in the world. But now, through Jesus Christ, you who sometimes were far off are brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made one, and has broken down the wall of separation between them; and he has abolished by his precious body the enmity between them [Jew & Gentile], and he has abolished by his commandments the ordinances of the law so that he may create in his person, from the two [Jew & Gentile], a new man [where there is neither Jew nor Gentile], thus making peace; And he reconciled both in one body with God, and with his cross he destroyed the enmity; and he came and preached peace to you who are far away and to those who are near. Through him we both [Jew and Gentile] are able to draw near by one Spirit to the Father.

I will later explain what my understanding of the text was because I still think it also has relevance.

Now one body in Christ with Christ as the head . . . Thanks, Elin