Originally posted by winterkill
Paul was actually a roman citizen who was put in at the time of Jesus by Herod, who helped rebuild the temple.

How did Paul rebuild the Temple before he was born? Time machine?

"The Chronicle Project" is some cult in Canada that claims to have found yet another "Bible Code" that changes what the Bible actually says. It seems unlikely that God would hide his true message for thousands of years until these yahoos came along to decipher it.

For the last time, there is no evidence of this, apart from that given by your church, which is obviously biased, and plenty of evidence that this was not the case, from sources which are not the western church.

I don't belong to any church in Syria. Sorry. Nice try. That's the second time you have accused me falsely. Says a lot about your character, or rather, lack thereof. Thanks!

There is more than ample historical evidence that the Nazarenes - who spoke Aramaic and were some of the very first converts to Christ - settled in Syria when the Second Temple was destroyed. This is historical fact.

Your bias is towards the Western Church. At least we know where you stand. You could have saved us all a lot of time if you had just said that you are a stooge for Rome. Or is it Greece? Who knows.

If you want to claim that there was a "sayings Gospel", along the lines of The Gospel of Thomas, that was referenced by the authors of the New Testament when they wrote their books in Koine Greek, that is possible, but irrelevant, but if you want to say that the Greek New Testament is a translation of a full Aramaic New Testament, you're demonstrably wrong.

Uh, no. It's called the Peshi-tta. It's actually a real Bible written in Aramaic.

Modern scholars concur that the Greek New Testament came from an Aramaic original source. You seem to be living in some alternative universe during this discussion.

Not sure why you are so amorous towards the Greek New Testament. It's quite clearly missing many key metaphors, meanings, and idiomatic expressions.

St. Paul the tent-maker? No, his profession was as a maker of prayer shawls, not tents.

Simon the Leper? Nope. Simon the Jar Maker. Wrong again......And a direct violation of Torah Law, by the way, but who really cares, right? Because the Greek New Testament is oh so accurate.

But, yes, go ahead and keep reading your Greek New Testament with all of its blunders, missed metaphors, et al. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

How did Paul rebuild the Temple before he was born? Time machine?

He said Herod rebuilt the Second Temple, not Paul. Good grief.

"The Chronicle Project" is some cult in Canada that claims to have found yet another "Bible Code" that changes what the Bible actually says. It seems unlikely that God would hide his true message for thousands of years until these yahoos came along to decipher it.

Love that quote, these people are a cult.. That's the way to create free thought, use the emotion word...CULT
Then all of us will run screaming.
Don't actually use information, we are not ready for that.

Thanks for the researched warning

Fine, let's settle this point. Show me the evidence that supports this claim. Not Wikipedia, not "sayings from Jesus", but clear academic evidence that the consensus of New Testament scholars is that the Greek New Testament is a translation of an Aramaic original.

Let's see...I've quoted St. Jerome, the patriarch of the Church of the East, given you a 64 page explanation from an Aramaic scholar, and pointed you towards the Peshi-tta text itself, even giving you specific examples where the Greek translation was completely botched. Yet you still demand proof?

Where is your proof that the Greek New Testament is the original authentic translation?
How do you explain even simple botched translations, such as Simon the Leper, let alone the hundreds of other botched translations?
How do you explain that even modern scholars claim the Greek New Testament came from an original Aramaic source?
What is your refutation that the Church of the East does not have the authentic New Testament?
Where is your evidence that modern scholars do not believe that the Greek New Testament did not come from an Aramaic source?
How do you explain the dozens of Aramaic expressions, metaphors, etc. that are found in the Peshi-tta, and not found in the botched Greek New Testament?
How do you explain the Nazarenes that spoke Aramaic and fled to Syria after the destruction of the Second Temple?

When you answer even a single one of my questions, which you have yet to do thus far, I might actually consider engaging in this discussion further.

Ironically enough, the Pope himself came out authoritatively stating the Roman Church botched the date of Christ's birth, and also botched the Christian calendar. Why would you take them seriously that they got the actual text of the Bible correctly, also? There is no credibility whatsoever from the pagans, my friend.

Which really gets to the heart of this thread. The Church has completely changed not only the Jewish Sabbath, but has completely fallen away from so many of the clear instructions laid out in the Bible itself. Idolatry? The Church is full of idols. Rosary? A post-biblical practice. Veneration, if not downright worship of Mary? Borderline idolatry hearkening back to pagan practices. Scapulars? No, the Bible states the followers of God should wear fringes on their shirts, not scapulars. Shave your beard? Not according to Leviticus, but the Catholic priests are clean shaven.

I could go on and on, but the Church is so far removed from Holy Writ theologically, it's mind-boggling sometimes. The theory that Christ replaced the Old Testament is a false doctrine. Christ was a rabbi, and followed the Jewish feasts. He loved the Torah, and the Jewish people for that matter.

Show me clear academic evidence that the consensus of New Testament scholars is that the Greek New Testament is a translation of an Aramaic original.

Maybe you should re-read my extensive posts and refutations. I have already addressed this question, stating that scholars today agree that the New Testament was written in Greek, but that large portions are believed to be from an Aramaic primary source.

The Church of the East, which you fail to acknowledge, states categorically that the Peshi-tta Bible in Aramaic is original New Testament, and not the Greek. The entire Syriac tradition - The Church of the East, the Syriac Orthodox, et al - is ample evidence that there is a dispute among theologians and scholars.

You just choose to not listen. I have given you ample evidence - historical, scholarly, and textual. I have quoted heads of entire religious bodies, and even St. Jerome. Yet you continue to want to twist and turn my words in all of your arrogance, taking my words out of context, and even twice falsely accusing me of belonging to the Syriac traditional church, of which I do not.

One of the earliest suggestions that Greek was not the primary source text comes from Papias. Papias provides a very early source for the idea that the canonical Gospels were based on non-Greek written sources. The relevant fragments of Papias' lost work "An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord" (Logiōn kuriakōn exēgēsis, c. 110-140) are preserved in quotations by Eusebius.

So, please, go ahead and refute Papias, if you please.

Nevertheless, as I have stated repeatedly, and which you continue to fail to listen, the Greek New Testament is a butchery of misquotes, mistranslated words, botched metaphors, and the like. The Peshi-tta, by contrast, when translated into English, is much more lucid and accurate, and shows a continuation of thought found in the Tanach. The Peshi-tta captures the unique Aramaic idiomatic expressions, and even poetry found in the New Testament, not found in the Greek New Testament.

The evidence is not from scholars - Scholars can and will debate this topic based on their own political and religious leanings. The evidence is in the Peshi-tta text itself, and available for anyone to read if they so choose.

You keep wanting to go back to which scholar said what, which is complete and utter nonsense. You can quote any scholar you so choose, but that does not negate the evidence, which is the Peshi-tta text itself.

Got that? You can start with Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, the two predominant New Testament scholars of the last 20 years.

Both Americans. Both of the Western tradition. Metzger was a Greek New Testament scholar, not an Aramaic scholar.

Ehrman, funny enough, actually states quite clearly in his criticisms of the Greek New Testament that it is a butchery of political interest, and scribes that did a poor job of translating, and a hodge podge of texts hobbled together. He actually gives credence to what I have been stating all along. The Greek New Testament was such a butchery that Ehrman became an agnostic after being raised an Evangelical!

The Washington Post quotes:

"Misquoting Jesus" (by Ehrman) is just that to some extent, a book of pop history about biblical misconceptions. The first of his 19 books to be a bestseller, it reads like one of his lectures -- an exploration into how the 27 books of the New Testament came to be cobbled together, a history rich with ecclesiastical politics, incompetent scribes and the difficulties of rendering oral traditions into a written text."

Given the above, it's always best to find primary sources. of which the Peshi-tta Aramaic is one.

Still not an answer to my very basic question.

Re-read the thread. I've answered your question multiple times. The issue at hand is not the scholar, but the text itself. I've even refuted the 2 scholars you offered to discuss.

We could debate for centuries about what other scholars think - You quoting from Western scholars, and me quoting from the East.

The question is not one of which scholar of which theological leaning, but which text is closest to Christ's message originally conveyed to his adherents in the Aramaic language. Clearly, the Greek is not the answer, and I have given you plenty of evidence illustrating this point.

And the fly continued to bang its face against the glass until in its own stupidity it died of thirst in the sunlight.

You have yet to quote any scholar, apart from your unaccredited "Aramaic Scholar", who doesn't count.

Go to Amazon.com, and type in Peshi-tta in the search engine (without the dash between Peshi and tta). On Amazon alone, there are over 418 different Aramaic translations and commentaries from various biblical scholars, the majority of whom fall into the Aramaic Primacy camp. Choose whichever scholar you wish.

Better yet, read the text yourself, or an English translation of the text, and make up your own mind.

Again, the issue at hand is not a matter of which scholar's opinion you follow, but rather which text is most closely aligned with Christ and His message.

Perhaps the most famous scholar and theologian to make the claim about Aramaic primacy is the one I quoted earlier in this thread - Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII. He was not only a theologian, but also the patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East. He was educated in England, studied theology at Canterbury, and wrote many books.

Other modern scholars that promote the concept of an Aramaic primary text include Matthew Black, a biblical scholar and Scottish minister; Bruce Chilton, a biblical scholar and author of the highly controversial book, "Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography"; Professor Maurice Casey, a British scholar and author; and Geza Vermes, the renowned Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and professor of Jewish studies. There are many more.