Linguistic Fruit from the Hebrew/Phoenician Tree - The secret to language/release from bondage...

reply to post by EnochWasRight


According to comparative evidence, the word "heart" is not semitic in origin, but proto-indoeuropean.

Heart etymology
List of English words of Hebrew Origin
List of English words of Semitic Origin

reply to post by iamea


If your talking about semiotics the subject makes my brain hurt. Its a complicated subject, I don't think you have solid grasp of it.

reply to post by SasquatchHunter


He doesn't contradict the OT because he was a Pharisee. Do you know what Jesus called the Pharisees? A brood of vipers whose father was the devil. He considered them to be liars and hypocrites who twisted scripture to fit their own needs. So why do you think it is so far out of reason to think that Paul, who was a Pharisee himself, did the same with Jesus and his teachings? Because his epistles were put into the bible by wealthy Roman aristocrats 300 years later? Not a very good argument in my opinion.

And yes, it is agreed on by most scholars that 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated by a later author. Peter talks of Paul as if his epistles are already considered scripture and that people were already very aware of his writings. This would not have have been the case at the time of 2 Peter being written, meaning that most likely it was added in later by an anonymous author.

Why do you think it would have been added in later? The only reason I can think of is that Paul was a liar and the people who made his epistles canon needed one of the apostles to back him up, so they inserted it in later to give Paul some kind of authority.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SasquatchHunter

 

He doesn't contradict the OT because he was a Pharisee. Do you know what Jesus called the Pharisees? A brood of vipers whose father was the devil. He considered them to be liars and hypocrites who twisted scripture to fit their own needs. So why do you think it is so far out of reason to think that Paul, who was a Pharisee himself, did the same with Jesus and his teachings? Because his epistles were put into the bible by wealthy Roman aristocrats 300 years later? Not a very good argument in my opinion.

And yes, it is agreed on by most scholars that 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated by a later author. Peter talks of Paul as if his epistles are already considered scripture and that people were already very aware of his writings. This would not have have been the case at the time of 2 Peter being written, meaning that most likely it was added in later by an anonymous author.

Why do you think it would have been added in later? The only reason I can think of is that Paul was a liar and the people who made his epistles canon needed one of the apostles to back him up, so they inserted it in later to give Paul some kind of authority.

The problem is you have to take what Jesus said and what Paul said out of context to make this claim. Paul was raised a Pharisee but there's no evidence he lied about anything if he did please provide it.

Let's say your right 2Peter isn't a legitimate work. You still have to say Luke wasn't legitimate. Since the Gospels are written Mark Matthew Luke John in that order. You would also have to say John isn't a legitimate work or even Matthew. What about Mark?
Do you not see the problem?

reply to post by SasquatchHunter


lol...

i am not talking about anything, other than look at what we are saying.

look (looks like 2 eyes in the middle of the word)

con-fused yet?

con (a lie or an untruth)
fused (atomic level of acceptance)

I am not talking about thesaurus, or a dictionary, I am just saying that people do not REAL EYES what they are talking about when they use language.

it doesnt MATTER!

reply to post by SasquatchHunter


Paul does for some odd reason insist that he was not lying on at least 4 occasions in his epistles.

2 Corinthians 11
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie.

Galatians 1
20 In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!

1 Timothy 2
7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth

Romans 9
1 I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying

I find It a bit odd that Paul insisted so many times he wasn't a liar. That sounds exactly like something a liar would do, insist that they aren't lying.

Why would Peter classify Paul's letters as scripture when they weren't considered to be until 300 years later? Why would Peter assume Paul's letters were well known when they couldn't have been at the time of 2 Peter being written?

Most importantly though, if 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated, which is what the evidence suggests, why does it have to do with Paul's letters and the fact that they are "hard to understand"? Didn't Jesus say his yoke was easy and burden light? Hard to understand teachings do not fit well with Jesus and his message.

I fail to see how Paul being illegitimate means the rest of the books are as well. While I don't believe the gospels are 100% legitimate themselves, that's beside the point. Are you saying Paul defines the entire NT? I thought that was Jesus' role?

Jesus and Paul are polar opposites when it comes to teachings. Jesus taught about God, Paul taught about traditions of men.

edit on 11-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Aphorism
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

According to comparative evidence, the word "heart" is not semitic in origin, but proto-indoeuropean.

Heart etymology
List of English words of Hebrew Origin
List of English words of Semitic Origin

Etymologists avoid Hebrew like a Scientist avoids God as Creator. There is clear evidence that nearly 75% of the most important words we use in the English language originate from a Phoenician or Hebrew origin. I have shown this clearly in connection to the Cor/ Homer / Hart / Herz. Even our word Hertz comes from the frequency association with a beating heart. Herz is directly connected to the young stag, or hart. Further, there is a morphological connection to Hebrew if you can find a word on the branch of Hebrew that appears in another language. Like I stated, the branches of Hebrew have fruit that grows in every language.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I find it weird that Paul insists he is not lying on so many occasions. That sounds exactly like something a liar would do, insist that they aren't lying.

Why would Peter classify Paul's letters as scripture when they weren't considered to be until 300 years later? Why would Peter assume Paul's letters were well known when they couldn't have been at the time of 2 Peter being written?

Most importantly though, if 2 Peter 3:16 was interpolated, which is what the evidence suggests, why does it have to do with Paul's letters and the fact that they are "hard to understand"? Didn't Jesus say his yoke was easy and burden light? Hard to understand teachings do not fit well with Jesus and his message.

I fail to see how Paul being illegitimate means the rest of the books are as well. While I don't believe the gospels are 100% legitimate themselves, that's beside the point. Are you saying Paul defines the entire NT? I thought that was Jesus' role?

Jesus and Paul are polar opposites when it comes to teachings. Jesus taught about God, Paul taught about traditions of men.

It's interesting that the word for "heart" in Hebrew and Arabic sound like the English word "love".

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Etymologists avoid Hebrew like a Scientist avoids God as Creator. There is clear evidence that nearly 75% of the most important words we use in the English language originate from a Phoenician or Hebrew origin. I have shown this clearly in connection to the Cor/ Homer / Hart / Herz. Even our word Hertz comes from the frequency association with a beating heart. Herz is directly connected to the young stag, or hart. Further, there is a morphological connection to Hebrew if you can find a word on the branch of Hebrew that appears in another language. Like I stated, the branches of Hebrew have fruit that grows in every language.

The word Hertz comes from Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, the pioneer in radio communication who was the first to broadcast and receive radio waves, and in no way represents the beating heart.

Here is the etymology of heart according to various sources.

According to Google:

Old English heorte, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hart and German Herz, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin cor, cord- and Greek kēr, kardia .

According to Wikipedia

From Middle English herte, from Old English heorte (“heart”), from Proto-Germanic *hertô (“heart”), from Proto-Indo-European *ḱḗr (“heart”). Germanic cognates: see *hertô. The Indo-European root is also the source of Latin cor, cordis, Greek καρδιά (kardiá), Welsh craidd, Irish croí, Armenian սիրտ (sirt), Russian сердце (serdce), Lithuanian širdis and Albanian kërthizë (“navel, central spot”).

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

Old English heorte "heart; breast, soul, spirit, will, desire; courage; mind, intellect," from Proto-Germanic *khertan- (cf. Old Saxon herta, Old Frisian herte, Old Norse hjarta, Dutch hart, Old High German herza, German Herz, Gothic hairto), from PIE *kerd- "heart" (cf. Greek kardia, Latin cor, Old Irish cride, Welsh craidd, Hittite kir, Lithuanian širdis, Russian serdce "heart," Breton kreiz "middle," Old Church Slavonic sreda "middle").

Spelling with -ea- is c.1500, reflecting what then was a long vowel, and remained when pronunciation shifted. Most of the figurative senses were present in Old English, including "intellect, memory," now only in by heart. Heart attack attested from 1875; heart disease is from 1864. The card game hearts is so called from 1886.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English:

ORIGIN Old English heorte, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch hart and German Herz, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin cor, cord- and Greek kēr, kardia .

No Hebrew is mentioned.

reply to post by Aphorism

No Hebrew is mentioned.

Hebrew is never mentioned. You can consider the way science takes any mention of God out of the equation and the same holds true for the roots of our language, even though 75% of English has Hebrew roots that are easily traced. For instance, Am ha'aretz (עם הארץ) refers to the people of Israel, or the heart of Israel. Heinrich Hertz was Jewish. Why is this important? I know this is too fantastic to think possible, but most of the discoveries in our world today trace their origin back to the Jewish minds that brought us the knowledge. Going back to the names in the Bible, the person's name told their character. Jewish families carry names for thousands of years. Why is a man named Hertz responsible for the discovery of free space electromagnetic waves? Why is Father Aleph Bet and His son the Word? I cannot help but see the connection.

Let me give you another example of how Etymologists cannot get past their bias against Hebrew roots.

If you do an Etymological search for the word Neptilim, you will come up empty to the true meaning. If you check the Jewish Orthodox Bible however, you get the meaning readily. Apart from the Bible as a source, no meaning can be gleaned. Cloud is the word nephelē. It is also related to the word Nephilim, a cloud of evil spirits covering the people. There is a connection between nephelē and Neph eilim that we are missing. How is it missing? It is missing by context and the overall particularization we have to Genesis 6.

If you read the Jewish Orthodox version of the Bible in Psalms 97 and in many other places, you will discover what the eilim represents. Neph is the same as the Hebrew “to fall” and is ‘Cloud’ in Greek and Latin. It does not take us you long to make the connections I have made between the Nephilim, and the fallen Angels of Jude 1, Enoch 1 and Genesis 6. In Arabic, ilim is defined as science and knowledge. Elim means “the mighty ones” in Hebrew. Context tells the story, even if scholars and theologians have not yet seen the light.

I don't question that a Jewish man named Hertz discovered the frequency wave that then parallels the heart rate, with a name that suggests what it means. This is not nearly as significant as knowing the connection to this fact from the tree and branch of knowledge that it falls from. If we fail to look at the Hebrew roots, we fail to see the distinction between the branch and the fruit that falls from it.

reply to post by SasquatchHunter

Paul was raised a Pharisee so what? Paul was many things but he wasn't a liar. If you can provide any evidence to support that please do so.

See if you can find anything in Pauls writing that Jesus taught... Theres nothing

Paul didn't even hint on what Jesus taught, he had an entirely new doctrine that basically said "just believe me and follow me... Faith is all thats required" Thus... Either Jesus changed his teachings after he died... Or Paul was a liar.

Plus all you have to do is read This and its obvious he was a liar

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Even if you somehow believe that.... We have Luke and 2Peter who support Paul.

They can support a liar if they choose to... And so can you for that matter

I will not

reply to post by Akragon


Paul was first a Jew so he understood Yahweh

Yahweh said to have Faith and so did Jesus.


Jesus means Salvation of Yahweh, so if Yahweh is The Devil then Jesus is the anti-christ.

reply to post by arpgme


The Jesus of Christianity, the one who died for our sins, the one written of in Paul's epistles is the antichrist. The Jesus of the gospels, the red words are the true Jesus. His message is what matters, nothing else. Anything else is rhetoric in my opinion.

arpgme
reply to post by Akragon

Paul was first a Jew so he understood Yahweh

Paul understood his religion as a Jew... And that religion assumed to know the name of God

And IF YHWH was the so called "God" of the OT, then he/she/it was not God

Yahweh said to have Faith and so did Jesus.

And so does every other god in history... They all say have faith in them

Jesus means Salvation of Yahweh, so if Yahweh is The Devil then Jesus is the anti-christ.

Who told you that?

Jesus wasn't even his name... its an English version of a latin name, which was transliterated from a greek name, which was translated from a shorter version of a Hebrew name... that means "lord Saves"

YHWH has nothing to do with his name

reply to post by Akragon


Besided "Adonai" ( a title for lord), "Yahweh" is usually translated as "The Lord" in English.

Yahweh-Elohim is translated as "The Lord God"


Yahushua which can be shorted to Yahshua or Yahshu (Jesus) means Salvation of Yahweh.


Hallelujah means "Praise Yah (weh)!"

Elijah means Yah(weh) is My God.

By the way, Jesus mentioned Elijah and Moses in a positive way and they are Old Testament believing in Yahweh.

It all leads back to Yahweh usually shortened to YHWH or Yah in words and names.

reply to post by arpgme


And as we all know Jesus spoke English...

and was a white guy with long flat ironed hair wandering in a gleaming white robe

reply to post by Akragon


English has nothing to do with it, the bible was written in the Hebrew and some parts Aramaic, the same languages those names are. the NT was written in Greek. In NT it shows Jesus spoke Aramaic and was even called Rabbi.


"Eli, Eli, Lema sabachthani"

I'm not sure what your point is?

Believe, I think it would be cool if Yahweh was something completely different because he seems mean and strict but right now the evidence does not seem to support that theory.


Remember Jesus said he didn't come to Change the OT but to FULFILL it. That is his own words. He was a believer.

reply to post by arpgme


Yet he never mentions his "Fathers" name as being YHWH or anything even close to it...

And he didn't say he came to fulfill the OT... He said he came to fulfill "the law"

The law according to the OT included 316 so called "laws" which Jesus did not entirely agree with...

The law he fulfilled was the law of Love... not the laws in the OT

And my point was YHWH was the god of the OT... Not the Father of Jesus

reply to post by Akragon


You said it backward, it's 613 original old testament laws but I get your point. Jesus said Love is the fulfillment and if you just go by that things are more simple and you don't fall into rituals (like most religious people seem to do)