Pe****ta Primacy, Palistinian Prophet, & why Jesus didn't speak Syriac

[godnotgod]

That is ridiculous.

Yeah? See my post about the Talmud and Galilean dialect on the 'Jesus in the East thread'.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Alas, this nonsense is only worth it if you sacrifice integrity. If you were going to do that, it should've been before spending too many years as a grad student slaving away for pennies to earn a doctorate so that you could make nickels instead. But there's still time! Now that you have the doctorate, you can now sell your integrity for much more! Simply copy and paste from a bunch of websites, stick your name and degree on it, and publish! You'll make tons because unlike the rest of these...well, whatever they are.. you actually have the training, knowledge, and expertise to know the truth! Granted, that should preclude you from publishing about this crap but hey, apparently everybody's doing it.

Yeah, that's why I think that this source is actively lying. I don't say that about sources I just don't like or who are doing incompetent scholarship. This source takes incompetence one step farther - when it actually has material, it is misinterpreted, and the rest is just made up.

If you're making stuff up, and selling it as something completely different, you are a liar. Not probably a liar, but actively deceiving people. This guy knows what he's doing, and not because he's trained (etc). He just heard that Jesus spoke Aramaic and he ran with that into his own fantasyland.

Now his followers aren't liars or idiots de facto for following him - they just can't tell the difference between good scholarship and people lying about it. Unfortunately, this attracts people who think that anything scholars say is horse crap, especially if it happens to reinforce anything that they already think they know. In short, it's better I think to assume that a follower is gullible rather than stupid.

And we've seen before how our friend is attracted to stuff that appears to 'overturn Christian tradition' -- and such material doesn't need to pass any level of intellectual scrutiny because it's automatically gold because it undermines scholarship or Christian tradition.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah? See my post about the Talmud and Galilean dialect on the 'Jesus in the East thread'.

It's silly no matter how much you say about it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah? See my post about the Talmud and Galilean dialect on the 'Jesus in the East thread'.

You mean where you quoted a 17th century academic to make a point about my "sterile academic opinion"? It's an outdated source in that we know that the dialect previously thought to be
1) unique to Galilee
&
2) traceable to Jesus' day
is really represented by inscriptions all over the place in Western Aramaic speaking communities and it turns out isn't actually from Jesus' day. The Talmud was written down some 5 centuries after Jesus. It went through massive changes such that even the stories from Jesus' day have been altered and changed I ways that make them historically useless. Also, neither the Babylonian Talmud nor the Palestinian Talmud is written in "Galilean Aramaic". Rather, the early work on this dialect was from trying to separate "layers" written in various dialects. That began before we had knowledge from inscriptions of which Aramaic dialects were spoken were and even before we knew of the existence of many.

 

[godnotgod]

You mean where you quoted a 17th century academic to make a point about my "sterile academic opinion"? It's an outdated source in that we know that the dialect previously thought to be
1) unique to Galilee
&
2) traceable to Jesus' day
is really represented by inscriptions all over the place in Western Aramaic speaking communities and it turns out isn't actually from Jesus' day. The Talmud was written down some 5 centuries after Jesus. It went through massive changes such that even the stories from Jesus' day have been altered and changed I ways that make them historically useless. Also, neither the Babylonian Talmud nor the Palestinian Talmud is written in "Galilean Aramaic". Rather, the early work on this dialect was from trying to separate "layers" written in various dialects. That began before we had knowledge from inscriptions of which Aramaic dialects were spoken were and even before we knew of the existence of many.

As Liza Doolitle once said (in her Galilean Aramaic cockney)....

"Aw Ga'wan!"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's an observation, using an actual phrase my boss used to say:

"Popcorn fart in hell!"

If the source had more properly named the language he was making up, to something like "I'm lying to you, give me your money," OR "Creamy Poo Pop-Tart" it wouldn't be as appealing.

Some other more accurate terms:
Backwards goat cheese
Tough nut filibuster
Sarah Palin
Unsettled Buttpaste (an actual thing)
Colgate drawbridge
Sunshine train
Cowboy underpants

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's an observation, using an actual phrase my boss used to say:

"Popcorn fart in hell!"

If the source had more properly named the language he was making up, to something like "I'm lying to you, give me your money," OR "Creamy Poo Pop-Tart" it wouldn't be as appealing.

Some other more accurate terms:
Backwards goat cheese
Tough nut filibuster
Sarah Palin
Unsettled Buttpaste (an actual thing)
Colgate drawbridge
Sunshine train
Cowboy underpants

Yes, that's a straw man. It's ok because Daddy can make it sing and dance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, that's a straw man. It's ok because Daddy can make it sing and dance.

[youtube]nauLgZISozs[/youtube]
If I Only Had a Brain - The Wizard of Oz (4/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD - YouTube

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wish stupidity came with a warning label.

[referring to the source]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I claim this thread for all the girls I've loved before.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Mt. Carmel Essene, the Aramaic NT, and Peter Pan are all in hell.

Peter Pan looks at the other two and says,

"Whew, it's a dream."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mt. Carmel Essene, the Aramaic NT, and Peter Pan are all in hell.

Peter Pan looks at the other two and says,

"Whew, it's a dream."

What I don't get about this assertion is that, as much as one can bring up manuscript arguments and arguments about the languages and so on (arguments others may not be able to evaluate), all one has to do is look at the translations provided by the Aramiac primacy group. We look at John 20:16 and do we find Mary addressing Jesus with a line like "and she turned to him and said 'rabbuni', meaning rabbi" or even just "...and said 'rabbuni'"? No. We find that like the Greek, the "Aramaic" gospels translate a term that was Aramaic to begin with (probably Hebrew of the day too, but that's irrelevant). Why, if this was the original Aramaic version, do we need a translation of Aramaic? And this happens more than once. I already pointed out that one version of Jesus' last words on the cross, the one in which we find Aramaic in Matthew and Mark, is translated in the "original Aramaic" versions. Again, we have a supposedly original Aramaic version translating Aramaic. In Mark 14:36 the Greek text again gives us first the Aramaic abba and then the Greek equivalent. In the "original Aramaic", there isn't another word to give so we just find a duplicated word instead. We can ignore the non-existence of any manuscript written in the Aramaic of Jesus' day (or knowledge of what exactly this was), the fact that whatever else one wishes to say about the Hebraisms of the gospels (esp. Mark), it's so blatantly obvious that John was written in Greek and to suggest that Paul's letters were originally Aramaic is absurd, and so on. These are all important arguments, it's just that we don't even need them to show how ridiculous Aramaic primacy is. We have the supposedly original Aramaic version copying the Greek by translating Aramaic terms and phrases.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I don't get about this assertion is that, as much as one can bring up manuscript arguments and arguments about the languages and so on (arguments others may not be able to evaluate), all one has to do is look at the translations provided by the Aramiac primacy group. We look at John 20:16 and do we find something Mary addressing Jesus with a line like "and she turned to him and said 'rabbuni', meaning rabbi" or even just "...and said 'rabbuni'"? No. We find that like the Greek, the "Aramaic" gospels translate a term that was Aramaic to begin with (probably Hebrew of the day too, but that's irrelevant). Why, if this was the original Aramaic version, do we need a translation of Aramaic? And this happens more than once. I already pointed out that one version of Jesus' last words on the cross, the one in which we find Aramaic in Matthew and Mark, is translated in the "original Aramaic" versions. Again, we have a supposedly original Aramaic version translating Aramaic. In Mark 14:36 the Greek text again gives us first the Aramaic and then the Greek equivalent. In the "original Aramaic", there isn't another word to give so we just find a duplicated word instead. We can ignore the non-existence of any manuscript written in the Aramaic of Jesus' day (or knowledge of what exactly this was), the fact that whatever else one wishes to say about the Hebraisms of the gospels (esp. Mark), it's so blatantly obvious that John was written in Greek and to suggest that Paul's letters were originally Aramaic is absurd, and so on. We have the supposedly original Aramaic version copying the Greek by translating Aramaic terms and phrases.

Haha, yeah, I know. That was the first point that I made about it. That's the most hilariously obvious thing about all of this. It's just a common sense observation that defeats the argument.

That's why I have such a hard time taking godnotgod seriously. It's just so boneheaded obvious.

This is exactly like spamming a KJV only argument from a KJV church website and insisting that it's true. I mean, what would we think about a non-Christian [indeed, anti-Christian] pseudo-intellectual who takes a KJV only material from a KJV only church website? He's joking!

Here we have him spamming from a fundamentalist "Essene" website and Aramaic only fundamentalists - both are Christian and at the lowest dregs of human thinking! It has to be a joke. I refuse to believe that another person can use this crap and be functional enough to type on a keyboard. I can't do it.

I am, after all, a humanist at heart.

 

[Willamena]

Haha, yeah, I know. That was the first point that I made about it. That's the most hilariously obvious thing about all of this. It's just a common sense observation that defeats the argument.

That's why I have such a hard time taking godnotgod seriously. It's just so boneheaded obvious.

This is exactly like spamming a KJV only argument from a KJV church website and insisting that it's true. I mean, what would we think about a non-Christian [indeed, anti-Christian] pseudo-intellectual who takes a KJV only material from a KJV only church website? He's joking!

Here we have him spamming from a fundamentalist "Essene" website and Aramaic only fundamentalists - both are Christian and at the lowest dregs of human thinking! It has to be a joke. I refuse to believe that another person can use this crap and be functional enough to type on a keyboard. I can't do it.

I am, after all, a humanist at heart.

Please don't talk about people in the third person on a public internet forum, behind their back to their face. It's bizarre.

 

[Shermana]

Mt. Carmel Essene, the Aramaic NT, and Peter Pan are all in hell.

Peter Pan looks at the other two and says,

"Whew, it's a dream."

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying that Josephus and Epiphanius's testimony to the Essene community at Mt Carmel who all came from Nazareth isn't valid?

According to Epiphanius,[14] and Josephus,[15] Mount Carmel had been the stronghold of the Essenes that came from a place in Galilee named Nazareth; though this Essene group are sometimes consequently referred to as Nazareans, they are not to be confused with the "Nazarene" sect, which followed the teachings of Jesus, but associated with the Pharisees. Members of the modern American groups claiming to be Essenes, but viewed by scholars as having no ties to the historical group,[16] treat Mount Carmel as having great religious significance on account of the protection it afforded to the historic Essene group.

 

[godnotgod]

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying that Josephus and Epiphanius's testimony to the Essene community at Mt Carmel who all came from Nazareth isn't valid?

According to Epiphanius,[14] and Josephus,[15] Mount Carmel had been the stronghold of the Essenes that came from a place in Galilee named Nazareth; though this Essene group are sometimes consequently referred to as Nazareans, they are not to be confused with the "Nazarene" sect, which followed the teachings of Jesus, but associated with the Pharisees. Members of the modern American groups claiming to be Essenes, but viewed by scholars as having no ties to the historical group,[16] treat Mount Carmel as having great religious significance on account of the protection it afforded to the historic Essene group.

Modern Essenes claim that the Nazarenes and the Nazareans (and Nazoreans) are all one and the same.

 

[Shermana]

Modern Essenes claim that the Nazarenes and the Nazareans (and Nazoreans) are all one and the same.

I highly, highly doubt the "Modern Essenes" are anything close to the originals. I doubt they're even Torah observant.

I don't necessarily doubt that there's a connection between "Nazareth" and the "Nazarenes" in terms of them being a particular religious community, but I wouldn't be asserting it as matter of fact. I used to, until I realized the provable evidence is pretty much non-existent.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wait, I'm confused. You're saying that Josephus and Epiphanius's testimony to the Essene community at Mt Carmel who all came from Nazareth isn't valid?

And what is the citation for these?

Wikipedia, the source for your quote, lists:
Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 1:18

A citation isn't even given for Josphus, other than his massive Wars.

* If you can find these quotes, we can discuss them

One of my points is that Nazareth isn't supposed to have existed, and Epiphanius (a fourth century Christian bishop!) and Josephus (a first century writer) are presented as evidence for the Essenes coming from a place that didn't even exist.

That's IF these two sources actually say this, which is almost certainly not accurate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Modern Essenes claim that the Nazarenes and the Nazareans (and Nazoreans) are all one and the same.

That's completely irrelevant.

 

[godnotgod]

That's completely irrelevant.

No, it isn't.