roberterasmus

I minor point on the "mansions" thing: The language of the Hebrew Scriptures (even the stuff referred to "in heaven") relate to Israel and their prophecies. The "gathering together" (aka - the rapture) is a distinctly Christian thing. The seven years when we will be "with him" (Jesus) does not infer that we will be in the "manisions"; again that's Jewish language and Jesus was talking to and about Jews in his intimations about "in my father's house are many..." Jesus did not know about Christianity, he knew only of what God had had written via the prophets and what else He had revealed to Jesus while he was on earth. The "secret" was "hid in God", "not made known unto the sons of men" (of which Jesus was one)... RE

Hi Para, As for "most people" do you mean "most people who've gotten out of TWI" or just "most people"? The evangelical (scholarly) world (for what it's worth) pretty much read Acts as if it was doctrine and the antics of the heros as being totally of God. Take for instance Peter at the beginning of the "church which is his body" (which I still see as having begun on Pentecost 29CE): He stands up and says "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (in reference to the outpouring of the holy spirit). Well, in hindsight, was it? I say no, but fundamentalists cannot but believe that Peter was speaking ex cathedra even then. Well, he was not the Pope (yet) and he was uninformed (at the time). My point is that Paul's trip (in that it happened and was RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE) was OK with God for most people. Reading critically I don't see any way in which, though Paul was trying to do a really nice thing for the impoverished "saints" in Jerusalem, that he could have been following guidance from Jesus. RE

Hey Tom, Us Unitarians (biblical that is) have a rough row to hoe. On the one hand, the things related to the "secret of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1 "musterion" instead of marturion ("testimony")) were "hid in God", "hid from ages and generations", "kept secret since the ages began" and "not made known unto the sons of man". On the other, Christendom has in its two bit brain that Jesus knew everything. He did not. He also was a man; nay "the son of man" (that Hebraic expression epitomizing humanness). Progressive revelation shows us that what came on the day of Pentecost was not what was expected in prophecy, but prophecy will be fulfilled. Jesus could only speak of what he knew and he knew of the "last days", the "great tribulation", the "day of the Lord", etc, but he did not know what was coming as the intercalation (large theological BS meaning "commercial interruption" for TV lovers) of events. A secret made known unto the Christian prophets, Paul being tapped to write it all down. Peter referring to Paul's writings as kinda "hard to understand". Jews had a hard time with Pauline theology. Anyway, not knowing something is not a sin (think Jesus here) and prophecy will come to pass (think Joel's prophecy about the spirit that Peter referred to on Pentecost...and he wasn't the Pope yet so he couldn't have been speaking Ex Cathedra...a little humor for my Roman Catholic compatriots). Lots of stuff to sort out RE

Tom, Been away and finally caught up here. I'll agree with Trust and Obey on this one. Further, I'll say that the genders and even moods in Greek can wrap up some textually tied fanatics in knots. Context is always king and greater (remoter) context will most always govern the local. For instance, my dispensational leanings being what they are, I'd rather comment on the "comforter" from a theological perspective. The comforting you quote in Isaiah 66 is chronologically after the comforter that Jesus forcasts. Beyond that, the comforter that Jesus speaks about is expected in the period of "great tribulation" and really has less to do with what Christians get (or got) on Pentecost than one might think at first glance. Christians, Paul says, got the "first fruits" of the spirit, with that fuller, more comforting giving coming, as Joel mentions. RE

Hi Albion, Much of the Aramaic original discussion gets into the speculative and I'm much more comfortable with theology (not that i can't discuss the Aramaic original...I'm trained in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac), it's just that theology, most importantly how things "fit" and apply is higher on my list of "things to do" these days. But if you have specific questions about the language and how it might relate to the Greek, I'll do my best to answer it. For instance the book you mentioned is certainly not the only one on the planet that approaches the language of Palestine, but it might be one of the more difficult to handle. There are countless discussions of the possiblity of the Aramaic original in journals (scholary ones in libraries). RE

So apparently (with my keen grasp of the obvious) no one seems to like offshoots. But are you still concerned about the "integrity and accuracy of the Word" (sorry, I just had to go there...). Personally I've associated myself with one and another group (from afar usually) and found that my own teaching or my wife's teaching around a dinner table much more satisfying. Hmmm... I think over the last 10 or 15 years there has been more light for me personally in reading the Scriptures than the 15 years previously when I sat through umpteen PFAL classes, Corps this and that, and research fellowship blah, blah blah (did I forget a comma....Jesus never forgot a comma...is there a way up there for me?). I love my wife and my kids. I love God and His son. Great stuff in the Bible. Re

Albion, There are a few ways to approach this subject. I personally like to involk the Aramaic substrate when it really matters. I also like to avoid the Syriac. It wasn't the issue (isn't the issue). Jesus and his disciples, Paul, John the Revelator and the rest of those highfalutin' Hebrews spoke Galilean and Palestinian Aramaic. If you find a text that doesn't really sound correct in your mind or doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture then an Aramaic substrate might help. I personally believe that Paul oversaw (a word???) the translation of the Christian Scriptures into Greek and did a damn fine job. RE

cman, Thanks for that last sentence. It seems that where there is smoke there is that other stuff, but there are important areas of true, Biblical research with the Aramaic/Hebrew substrate that can continue to bring to light slight changes in the text and can illuminate the Western mind to the ancient near east background to the text. IMHO RE

Soul, It's a kinda now/ not yet thing (like our own salvation). We have it ("saved" from the lake of fire). I can't say the same for the Nephilim or the other beings that will experience that fun place. RE

Oh, I didnt't say they were not around... Thomas, I don't agree that the "Gospels were written later" or "after the Epistles" though some do. But it is hard to date things. At least there is some chronology in Acts, eh? RE

Thomas, Some of what you posit might be the case, but not necessarily all. Peter (if he can be trusted...) thinks that Paul's writings were Scripture and on the same par as that "other" stuff (see 2 Peter 3:16) and Paul seems to be already quoting one of the Gospels in Timothy as if they were Scripture as well. The Tanakh, BTW, contains the "Law (Heb - torah), and the writings (Heb - kethubim)" as Jesus rightly points out, but the Prophets are the (Heb - nebiim) , not (OMG) Nephilim....those boys are worthless beings whose end is known. RE

Just so you know. I love the snappy fez, but I wonder if it truly is a chick magnet...keep me posted. B

Hey is "Joe in Joppa" copywrited? Love it. I just thought of another substrate dealy with the underlying Greek. Similar to the "Bank" analogy above, but far more semitic is the fact that some letters in Aramaic/ Hebrew are so very close in resemblance that a single "tittle" separates them (such is the case with the resh and the dalat ("r" and "d" in transliteration). There is one verse that is completely cleared up by recognizing the crazy English and fixing it with a "tittle". Bob

Love, I apologize for the jargon. It's a residual from my skoolin'; I'm a skoler don't ya know. Substrate is the underlying text that we "suppose" to be behind the Greek of the extant manuscripts (MMS). As you have read some of the posts above you'll note that there are some replying who feel that absence of a text means that there was no Aramaic original to the Christian Scriptures (note that I will stay away from the words "New Testament" feeling as I do that we are not in the New Covenant era (that promise was made to the "house of Judah and the house of Israel" which is not the "church, which is his (Jesus') body") as yet and that those words are a misnomer). Anyhoo, if someone believes in the inerrancy of Scripture (or even their "inspiration"...meaning we're OK using the term "Scripture" as opposed to "nice book" or "good literature from the ancient near east" or some such BS.) then the substate can be shown to exist behind the Greek. You can "press" me all you'd like, I don't mind, but I just would like to know who you are. In one sense avatars are cool, but in another, I don't like to hide behind them (I'm hoping you don't either). Also, there is rhyme in both Hebrew and Aramaic poetry though I haven't done a lot of work on it. Pesh_tta Primacy site really push that stuff, but my work has only been in the substrate (where I can see in the Greek that something wacky is happening (or in the English for that matter)). I'll then look at whether the Greek could have gone in more than one direction (something like how our work "bank" can mean "where you put your money" or "where you sit with your sweety and smooch and watch the water go by"...is this helping?). If the other direction makes perfect sense, it is possible (note how I keep using prevaricating words?) that there was an error in translation. Knowing a few of these I have drunk the koolaid of the Aramaic substrate. It really only takes one...really. Bob

Hey Love, Thanks for the reply. I'm not interested in not knowing to whom I'm sending sensitive materials; materials that cost me much in academic training and work in graduate studies. If you'd like the "papers please" you'll either have to comply with my "introduction please" or be thirsty. I am not familiar with the site you posted, but it looks like a typical Pesh_tta Primacy site and Victor Alexander seems to be a native "Assyrian". What do you know about him? Are you familiar with the arguments of an Aramaic substrate to the Christian Scriptures? Bob Abigail, I concur. Is there anything I can help with? Bob

Love, What is your interest in these matters? Just askin'. Bob And who are you, BTW?

Tom, The hypothesis is found in numerous scholarly articles in the early 20th century where the debate was hottest and heaviest. Charles Cutler Torrey (out of Yale) and his ilk had the best proofs. Their writing usually carries the requirement of knowing the languages (as in the scholarly world it is the height of borishness to make it easy...). Go figure. But I'll try to dig out one or two and PDF them. Contact me within the forum and I'll give you my home email if you'd like. Now, there are also books written by Torrey and others (full length jobies that will really put you to sleep), and I'd avoid the Pesh__ta Primacy Peoples stuff. They just confuse the issue with Syriac, which was not the original language of Jesus, contrary to George Lamsa, Rocco Errico and many others. As I mentioned above, I've written articles on the subject itself (with the layman in mind, BTW) and could be persuaded to PDF one (at least). Regards, Bob

Well,Hi then, Mark, As you'll note above I'm the brother of MJ Strahaul, Kathy Wassung and Susi Axtell (aka - Bob). Karie (at UCLA), Dan McConaughy, Bruce Mahone, Mike Gudorf and I (at U of C) studied Aramaic with the best scholars of their day. Karie's mentor lasted longer than our's. Stanilav Segert died in 2005 and Arthur Voobus in 1988 (Sadly, only a few years after my graduation). We were all in the Research Fellowship together. I stay engaged with the textual criticism part of my education more than the substrate issue, but when someone proports to flesh out the skeleton of the hypothesis it is often good to demand proofs. I don't really have the time to go through James' "cuts and pastes" (being convinced by my own work that the Aramaic substrate existed), but if I can answer any questions I'm more than happy. BTW, this thread recently got me back in touch with Karie out in CA and I hope we can collaborate again...we'll see. Bob

Tanks and missiles Wolf, I'm, BTW, Bob Wassung (not hiding behind da silly avatar) and I do understand this Aramaic stuff pretty well. There are only a few places (in my experience) where the underlying substrate makes a real difference. Wrote some articles on it back in the day. RE

Hi Word, I also hate the "blanket" (good metaphor, BTW) and in no way intended to throw it (it's not just endemic to TWI either, as you probably well know). I merely wished to allow James to show real evidence in the face of some pretty stiff resistance (and there is evidence of mistranslation from the Aramaic into the Greek (a textual "smoking gun")). It can get real complicated and doesn't usually involve doctrinal issues so I rarely, if ever, engage in discussion with a hostile crowd. Not worth it. Much more important things between God and man, eh? When it comes to textual issues that you don't have a text for it is also incumbent on the teacher to show at least one undeniable issue, IMHO. I know Pedangta Primacy People (the infamous PPP) throw a lot of s__t against the wall and if they'd just slow down and discuss (OMG!) it, it could be fun. We'll see. RE Agigail, Nobody gets my cash these days (but thanks for your sentiment) and I'm not sure there is anything worthwhile in reading any more by anybody about VP. However, the hypothesized Aramaic original helped fuel my love of textual studies many years ago. It continues to this day. RE

Hi, Mark, Discipleship would indicate one has a good teacher, would it not? I have yet to see this in Mr. Trimm. I do, however, encourage anyone, to whom the Scriptures represent God's Word, to read the arguements on the Aramaic autograph of the Testaments. I have not taken the time to read all his posts, but did do a google search on the man hiimself last night after my reply to him (probably should have done it before...). I find that he is a bit controversal (educationalally) and, according to others, a bit disengenuous (the Jewishness thing). But I'd like to hear from him however and I have yet to receive a reply to my missive. As for Paul, I think it is fairly obvious (to most) that the "apostle to the Gentiles" would, of necessity, have been required to speak and write in Greek. Further, the paucity (note that I didn't say "absence") of evidence in his epistles to the underlying autograph has indicated to me over the years that he was a damn good translator as well. Do we know each other?? Regards, RE

God bless you, Mr. Trimm, I'm one of the long lost members of the Way International's research Fellowship. I studied with Arthur Voobus (Syriac) and Dennis Pardee (Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic) at the U of C and Dan M. and I were good friends. He is alive and well and is teaching Finance/ Economics in California (with this second PhD, BTW...a brillant man and believer). Via this thread I have made contact again with Mrs. Masterson and for that I thank you. I find that many trying to make sense out of this complicated subject might better be served with examples that stand out like the "sore thumb" that they are (from the Greek that is). Other nuanced lessons just don't make the grade. I also find that those who cannot quite grasp the significance of an Aramaic/Hebrew original for both testaments tend to immediately chatise the work that you (and, of course, others) have done and just say you are a Pharisee of the first degree. Short sighted at best. Judgemental in the least. Don't let it bother you. Keep up the hard work of the text. Comments from some above are akin to the patient skewering the doctor for pouring his heart out in the classroom during medical school. As I allude...they want only the cure that helps them personally. That being said, I'd like to get to know you and your academics better. Maybe we can talk off forum. Please send me a message via this site and I'll respond. Regards, RE

Roy, Roy, Roy, You're sweet to suggest that all these things are holding me back, but frankly I've never been closer to my Savior. I'm very opinionated until someone can change that opinion with what "is written". Please feel free to interact with my posts and take me to task if I am wrongly handling a subject doctrinally. Practically is a totally different matter. How one lives with the materials we have been given is more important. Hugs and kisses (both holy), Bob

No, I could not leave my remarks at this is a "doctrinal" portion of the Forum... N. T. Wright is not the Messiah; he's a man, a theologian who has theological opinions that are not quite Scriptural here. I'm offended by his method and point out errors and you're upset. If people want to have answers, the wrong ones don't help. While I appreciate your excitement over yet another "talking head" and I'm sure NT will be there when its all said and done, but of course he's "one of the world's leading and most respected bible scholars"....again. Anyone can question anyone's "study habits". The pabulum that he's serving up on the dead and where they are does not make him immune to criticism...ever. RE

Doctrinal That one covers it too.