James Trimm

Let me begin by expressing my disapointment that some one has stooped to reposting slander and libel about me here. I should not have to respond, but the following is my detailed and documented proof that this is all slaneer and lible:

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8857000/8857710/1/print/sl2.pdf

also as for the false claims of copyright infringement:

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8850000/8850159/1/print/jstrimm3.pdf

BTW ... How does this impact the accuracy of the facts or argument I presented in my post?

There has been a great deal of confusion over the years over what the "church" is. Some have taught that the Church is a new entity which replaces Israel. Others have taught that the Church is a new body which is totally independent of Israel. Still others have taught that the Church and Israel are two different but overlapping entities. With all of the misconceptions about the identity of the "Church" the time has come to set the story straight and reveal what the "Church" really is.

The English word "Church" comes originally from the Old English word KIRKE. The Old English word KIRKE was the word the Anglo-Saxons used to refer to their pagan places of worship. When they became Christianized the Anglo-Saxons continued to call their places of worship KIRKES and as the language evolved "Churches". You may have

heard that the word "Church" originally referred to the people and later came to refer to the building. This is not true. The word "Church" originally referred to the building and later came to refer to the people. Moreover the word "church" is of pagan origin

Now if you look up the English word "Church" in Webster's dictionary you will find the following meanings:

1. a building set apart or consecrated for public worship, esp. one

for Christian worship.

2. All Christians as a whole.

3. A denomination of Christians.

In short a "church" is either a building or a group of Christians.

Now wherever we see the English word "church" in an English Bible we would expect the underlying Greek word would be a Greek word that also means "a group of Christians". Since the English uses such a technical theological term one would expect that the Greek has also used a technical theological term. But the reality is that the Greek word that appears wherever the English has "church" is not a technical theological term and DOES NOT mean "a group of Christians" at all. That’s right, a technical theological term of pagan origin meaning "a group of Christians" has been inserted in your English Bible despite the fact that the corresponding Greek word is not a technical theological term and does not mean the same thing as the word "Church".

The Greek word that appears where our English Bible's have "church" is EKKLESIA. EKKLESIA is just the Greek word for "assembly". Although it comes from a root meaning "to call out" there is no special theological significance to this word. In fact this is the same Greek word which was used for "assembly" by the classical Pagan Greek writers. Inscriptions in ancient Greek auditoriums where pagan ritual dramas were performed by the Bachus cult have the audience section inscribed with the sign "EKKLESIA". This same Greek word EKKLESIA is used throughout the Greek Septuagint translation of the Tanak as the word for "assembly". There are also many places where the Greek word EKKLESIA appears in the NT but which the KJV and other translators did NOT translate the word as "church". This same Greek word is even used in Acts 19:32-41 to describe an unruly mob, yet here the translators suddenly translate

the word as "assembly" rather than "church".

There is therefore no such thing as the "church" because the Greek word translated "church" does not mean "church" at all but "assembly".

Now there are some who claim that the "Church" was a new entity born in Acts 2 at Pentecost of 32 C.E. . However if we examine the events of Acts 2 we find that at that event persons were "added to" the "church" (Acts 2:47) which means that the "church" had to have already existed at that time. If we turn to Acts 7:38 we see that it speaks of Moses as "he that was in the church in the wilderness". Certainly this "church" could not have been a new "New Testament" entity.

Now while the term "church" is a mistranslation for a word simply meaning "assembly", there is an entity which is commonly referred to as "The Assembly" in the New Testament. Let us examine the Scriptures and determine what the true identity of this "Assembly" is.

To begin with we must understand that this Assembly is also known as the "Body of Messiah" as we read:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,

the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the

preeminence."

(Col. 1:18 - KJV)

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head

over all things to the church,

Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

(Eph. 1:22-23 - KJV)

Now one may ask what "Assembly" is the allegorical Messiah? To find the answer to that question lets look at Matthew 2:14-15:

"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and

departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled

which was spoken of the Lord

by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. "

(Matthew 2:14-15 - KJV)

Now here Matthew is citing a prophecy in Hosea 11:1 and applying it to Messiah. Now let us go back and look at this prophecy in Hosea 11:1 in context:

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him,

and called my son out of Egypt."

(Hosea 11:1 - KJV)

Here Hosea is referring to Israel as the son who is called out of Egypt. This points us back to a passage in the Torah:

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,

behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

(Ex. 4:22-23 - KJV)

From these two passages we learn that Israel is the firstborn son of Elohim who is called out of Egypt. However in Matthew it is Yeshua the Messiah who is called up out of Egypt and in Col. 1:18 Messiah is the "firstborn". Moreover Hebrews speaks of the "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23 - KJV).

Thus Israel is allegorically equivalent to the Messiah. There are some very important reasons for this allegorical relationship:

* Both are the "firstborn Son of Elohim".

* Both made a major impact on the world.

* Both were born through a biological miracle on their mother's womb.

* Both were taken into Egypt to save their lives.

* Both were called up out of Egypt.

* Both were despised and rejected by men.

* Rome attempted to destroy them both.

* Both are resurrected.

Thus Israel is the allegorical "Body of Messiah". Moreover in the Tanak, Israel is commonly called "The Assembly of Israel" and wherever the phrase "The Assembly of Israel" appears in the Tanak the Greek LXX has "EKKLESIA of Israel".

The so-called "church" which is the "Body of Messiah" is in reality "the Assembly of Israel". Yeshua did not come to create a new religion, but to be Messiah of the old one. Wherever your English New Testament refers to a "church" (i.e. a group of Christians) the Greek has "EKKLESIA a term which commonly refers to the "Assembly of Israel". The "Church" as most Christians have understood it never existed. All of the passage people have thought were talking about the "Church" were actually talking about the Assembly of Israel, not Christianity, but the Nazarene sect of Judaism.

For those following this thread, I thought you might want to read this post from another site, from someone (one of our detractors) who had consulted with TWI against us on this case:

Shalom Chaverim,

Well, let it now and forever be said that I TRIED, as did Kathyern Kern, and

Vickie Dillen, to bring the criminal, and wanna be Jew, James Scott Trimm, to

JUSTICE.

I sold my copy of the HRV New Testament to The Way International, gave them a

guided tour of all of the internet websites about Trimm's plagiarism.

And I spent a very long time with them on the telephone as well.

Now, I'll tell you what they (The Way) told me over the telephone:

They and their attorney traveled to Hurst, Texas (a surburb of the

Dallas/Ft.Worth metroplex) two times to visit Trimm at his home.

They offered him "a deal", where he COULD KEEP PUBLISHING HIS HRV "BIBLE", if he

would only acknowledge (ADMIT) that he had plagiarized their 3 volume

Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament.

The Way International seems to have settled this lawsuit without winning one

thin dime!

If you read his propaganda piece below, you'll see that The Way seems to have

settled for nothing outside an admittance on newly printed copies of the HRV

"Bible" that some of the material came from their Aramaic-English Interlinear

New Testament.

Trimm is back to saying that NO ONE was EVER ripped off by him or his Nazarene

Society for the Advancement of Judaism.

Trimm NEVER admits that he actually MET Paul Younan in person and could not

speak even two minutes of Syriac in a conversation with Younan.

If you CAN'T SPEAK IT, HOW can you TRANSLATE IT??

It seems that he (Trimm) has also gotten an apology out of Andrew Gabriel Roth,

another Nazarene plagiarist, proving once for all time, that birds of a feather,

really DO stick together.

The Way flat out told me that Trimm translated not only their successes from

their Aramaic English New Testament, but ALSO THAT HE TRANSLATED THEIR MISTAKES,

and by Trimm doing that alone, THIS ABSOLUTELY PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT

that he had PLAGIARIZED their (The Way) New Testament.

Well, I TRIED.

I honestly believe that this is one more thing that seems to say that we are

literally in The End of Days.

Plainly, evil triumphed here over righteousness and good.

I'm 58 years old now, and as God is my Witness, I will NEVER have anything to do

with the so-called Nazarene Movement again for the rest of my life.

With people at the helm like James Trimm and Andrew Gabriel Roth, the Nazarene

Movement is shipwrecked, and will forever continue to be so.

TRUTH against the world, Albion Guppy

From the criminal James Trimm:

Shalom Friends,

I have a very important announcement.

As many of you know The Way International had filed a lawsuit against myself and

the WNAE (under our old name of SANJ) this last summer, alleging that portions

of the HRV Scriptures infringed on the copyright of a translation they once

published about twenty years ago.

We responded by arguing that the lawsuit itself was unconstitutional on the

basis that Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture

interpretation is doctrine. (The US Supreme court has ruled that the

Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights forbids the court from adjudicating

property disputes between religious groups where hearing the case would require

the court to consider, weigh or interpret doctrine, or resolve doctrinal

issues.) In this case hearing such a case would put the government in the

position of regulating Scripture interpretation, and that we as an Establishment

of Religion may interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.

We also responded by stating that the HRV is an original translation made

directly from Hebrew and Aramaic sources and that close agreement with the AEINT

is to be expected since both are (at places) literal translations of the

Pedangta, and that such similarities fall within the legal doctrine of merger.

Furthermore we argued that any use the AEINT made of the HRV was within the four

criteria of the fair use law and was also permitted by an implied license, and

thus did not constitute copyright infringement.

I am pleased to announce that after a process of discovery and taking of

depositions, The Way International has chosen to settle their lawsuit rather

than take it to trial. As part of the settlement they have issued us a permanent

license with no monetary consideration. Also as part of the settlement we have

maintained that there was no copyright infringement on our part, however we have

also agreed as part of this license agreement, to henceforth give credit in

editions of the HRV to the TWI version. (Thus allegations of copyright

infringement are forever ended.).

We have always maintained that a final stage in the translation of the HRV

involved comparing with previous translations of the Aramaic so as to insure

that the HRV presented the best possible translation of each and every word and

phrase, and so we have no problem giving them due credit. In fact we will be

crediting several other works that were referenced as well.

We maintain our use of the TWI edition was legal fair use and was also permitted

under an implied license, but for the record there is now a formal license as

well. Where there is a formal license in place there can be no question of

either copyright infringement or plagiarism.

With this suit behind us, we can now freely answer our critics who have accused

us of plagiarism and copyright infringement. We have compiled a document from

the evidence we had originally planned to present in court which demonstrates

that the Hebraic Roots Version is an original and independent translation made

directly from Hebrew and Aramaic sources, not infringing on anyone's copyright.

This PDF document (about 50 pages) settles this issues once and for all and can

be downloaded at:

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_68/8850000/8850159/1/print/jstrimm3.pdf

Post taken from:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/message/15006

---

The apostle Paul the writer of the church epistles was from Tarsus which is present day Turkey. And Paul was probably born in Tarsus also, although I want to double check this. Tarsus was part of the Greek empire or nation and not part of Israel or the Jewish nation. The people from Tarsus, for the most part would have spoken Greek. Even when Tarsus became part of the Roman empire, people born in Tarsus would have spoken Greek and this would have been their primary language. Tarsus as part of the Roman empire by, in general, military conquest tells us why Paul was a Roman citizen. Below is some information on the city of Tarsus. When I find more I will post it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14461b.htm

Here is another link. From this link it looks like Paul was born in Tarsus, but as a youth was sent to live in Jerusalem to study under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). This points to Paul learning Greek as an infant, but being schooled in Jerusalem under the Jewish law and learning this in Hebrew and Aramaic.

http://www.meandertravel.com/biblicalanatolia/biblical_anatolia.php?details=cityofstpaul&m=5&md=sc5

Another thing to consider regarding Paul is who were Paul's parents and where were they from?

Here is another link which says there was a colony of Jews in Tarsus. The reason being since "Tarsus was an important trading center, it gathered a colony of Jews which grew and prospered." Since trade was going on between nations, this tells me they would not have been isolated by language and would have likely known both Aramaic and Greek.

http://www.ptpe.org/chapters/tarsus/

Paul was only incidentally born at Tarsus. He was brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)

The chart of a alleged Hebrew Matthew is very imaginative. The most striking thing about it is that the oldest copy of any Hebrew Matthew is 1,300 years after it was allegedly written. In contrast, there are about three copies of small portions of the Greek NT written before 200 AD, lots of them written during the 200s, and even Rom 13:3 preserved in a mosaic in a public building in Caesarea (that's in Israel)from the 300s. If you were looking at the actual evidence (rather than speculation) for a Hebrew or Greek Matthew, what's the obvious choice?

The chart is based upon extensive documented evidence presented in my book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

It is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament

books date back to the 4th century C.E..

However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for.

To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak.

Since no copies of Ester were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to

the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek.

The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Ester to our oldest Hebrew copies of Ester is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original.

Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them.

The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text.

Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest complete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books.

The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproved by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.

Ask one guy a question about a bible verse and he'll answer you one way, complete with scholarly work, ask another and , of course, same story. They can all tell you why the other guy is wrong, and why they're right, and they all belive they're right. You are NO different, no matter who you are. This porrige is too Hot, This porrige is roo Cold, This porrige is just Right. Everyone knows how they like their own porrige and you can use the scriptures to find a way to support almost any belief, or system of beliefs. The use of foreign words conveys intellect, and intellect is always right. It's smarter than you are...! We should all be impressed, after all, we were when Doctor W or LCM used them.

It's all Vanity.

Cut and Paste your heart away, after all, the bigger your post is, the more cerebral you look. I can see how most of your posting goes now. It's not just about how right you are, but how wrong others are. I've heard all that before. It'a amazing how all the people that think they're "something", all do the same thing.

I have to go get in line to get a cheeseburger now. and that's more important than finishing this.

Do you really think a cheeseburger is more important that seeking to understand the Word of Yahweh?

If so then you eat your "food" and I will gladly eat mine...

Dispensing with Dispensationalism and Church/Israel Dichotomy

By James Trimm

(an excerpt from the book Nazarene Theology at http://www.lulu.com/nazarene )

Another misunderstanding of the Church/Israel relationship is known as "Church/Israel Dichotomy. Church/Israel dichotomy is the position held by Dispensational Premillinialists (called Dispensationalists). This teaching was first put forward by John Darby during the 19th Century. Church/Israel Dichotomy teaches that the Church and Israel are two totally different groups with no members in common. According to this teaching, when a member of Israel (a Jew) becomes a member of the Church (a Christian) he is no longer a member of Israel (a Jew). Church/Israel Dichotomy came about as a result of false Dispensationalist teachings. Dispenstationalism teaches that the history of man can broken down into various compartmentalized "ages" or "dispensations." One of these is called "The Age of Law", this "Age of Law" is said to have ended with the founding of the Church and the beginning of a "Church Age" in Acts chapter 2. During this "Church Age" Dispensationalists teach that the Old Testament Law does not apply. This "Church Age" of no Law will, they say, end with the start of the seven year Tribulation (Dan. 9:27). The Dispensationalists admit that the Law is in effect during the Tribulation, since the sacrifices and offerings are continued during this time (Dan. 9:27). As a result Dispensationalists invented a Pre-Trib Rapture (dealt with in another blog) to separate the Church Age from the Tribulation so that the Church is raptured away and Israel remains for the Tribulation. To make this theory work, Dispensationalists had to make the Church and Israel two totally separate groups, so that everyone was either raptured away as part of the Church, or remained behind as Israel to enter the Tribulation. Thus Church/Israel Dichotomy was invented.

One of the verses used by Church/Israel Dichotomists is 1Cor. 10:32, "Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the Church of God." (KJV) The Dichotomy Theologians argue that these must be three distinct groups, with no common members. The truth is that there is no indication of this, for example "signs, wonders and miracles" (2Cor. 12:12) are not three distinct sets with no common members. The famous phrase "Friends, Romans and countrymen" also contained common members.

Another text used by Dichotomists is Eph. 2:14-16. However in this text we see only the destruction of enmity, not the birth of dichotomy. Another verse used by Dichotomists is Col. 3:11 "...there is neither Greek nor Jew..." however, if we look at a parallel passage in Gal. 3:28 we also read "There is neither Jew nor Greek... neither male nor female..." Yet females continue to exist as a distinct group with differing obligations (see 1Tim. 2:12-14; Titus 2:3-5.) The true meaning of this text is that Jews and Gentiles are both saved in the same way (Acts. 15:11; Rom. 3:22; 10:12) and both can be immersed into the Body of Messiah (1Cor. 12:13).

Several N.T. passages make it clear that Jews and Gentiles still exist as distinguishable peoples among believers (1Cor. 12:13; Rom. 9:3-4; Rom. 3:1-2; Rev. 2:9; 3:9) In the Ketuvim Netzarim Jews are still a nation of Priests (1Pt. 1:1; 2:5, 9 = Is. 43:20-21; Deut. 7:6; 10:15; Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 61:6) moreover in Acts 15 and 21 is is clear that there are both Jews and gentile believers (Acts 15:19-20; 21:21-26) with different emissaries (Acts 9:15; Gal. 1:16; 2:7-9).

I said George Lamsa and victor paul wierwille were crackpots.

I didn't name anyone else, and didn't imply it about anyone else.

I said that articles in the Way Magazine were de facto or de jure

censored to never contradict vpw and always agree with him.

I hope you weren't suggesting I called anyone else a crackpot.

One might think you meant to do that when you named other specific

people I've never heard of and certainly couldn't form an opinion

on either way. (Or one might not, depending.)

They were the other two people I quoted concerning the idea that Paul wrote in Aramaic (I quoted them from The Way Magazine GMIR sections):

“The evidence from God’s Word causes us to take issue with the tradition which contends that Paul wrote in Greek. Knowing that Aramaic was his native tongue should prompt us to consider the language of an Aramaic original…”

- An Aramaic Approach to the Church Epistles; Karen Masterson p. 20

(The Way Magazine; March-April 1984)

“We can clearly see concerning the Apostle Paul’s life (about which we know the most) that he would have written in Aramaic.”

- The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament; Daniel L. McConaughy p. 19

(The Way Magazine; May-June 1985)

G'MIRA: A Journal of New Testament Studies:

http://tinyurl.com/2doxcv6

Does anyone have any of the old GMIR segments from the old Way Magazine?

I have:

An Aramaic Approach to the Church Epistles by Karen Masterson March-April 1984

The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament by Daniel L. McConaughy May-June 1985

If anyone has any of the other installments of GMIR (if there were others) and would not mind scanning and emailing them to me at cleartruth@yahoo.com

or mailing them to:

James Trimm

Box 471

Hurst, TX 76053

I would really appreciate it.

A) George Lamsa was a crackpot whose status in twi was due to victor paul wierwille's reverence

of him- and he was twi's all-time crackpot.

B) vpw was notorious for taking the work of others and parroting it without understanding,

and pretending he was its author. That's why he repeated mistakes made by Bullinger,

even when they were easy to disprove (i.e. "the kingdom of heaven is one thing,

the kingdom of God is something else.") vpw insisted the New Testament was given

originally in Aramaic because Lamsa said so, and the way corps was expected (and required)

to do research that agreed with vpw's conclusions.

In other words,

the Way Magazine is not a RELIABLE or TRUSTWORTHY source on Aramaic vs Greek,

and George Lamsa is not, either.

(I am suspicious of any work that proceeds from the pen of a crackpot.)

You purportedly have lots of other sources at your fingertips. Those would strengthen your

case, but these would not- not unless someone is still in awe of twi, vpw, or Lamsa simply

because vpw or twi said to be in awe of Lamsa.

People still in awe of any of those don't post at the GSC. In general, they flee from the

GSC like a vampire fleeing sunlight.

I'll give you Lamsa, however my understanding is that the Old Way Intl Research Team and others working in Aramaic at TWI have parted ways with TWI. Are they not like GSC folk? And have they rejected their own earlier scholarship?

I know that Daniel L. McConaughy was not a crackpot. On an expedition to the Middle East in 1985 he discovered a lost page of a well known 4th century Aramaic ms of the Old Syriac. He published his discovery in the academic Journal Biblia Vol. 68 1987 p.85. He also published a paper in 1988 in the academic Journal Oriens Christianus (Band 72 p. 63) on the Aramaic reading of Acts 1:4. He was a student of the late professor Arthur Voobus and had his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago (known for Aramaic studies). This guy was no crackpot, he was the real McCoy.

I understand that Karen Masterson now has Ph.D. from UCLA in Near Eastern Languages (http://allmyways.blogspot.com) she is also not a crackpot but a serious scholar.

Mistakes in the Greek New Testament

In addition to grammatical errors in the Greek New Testament, there are also a number of "blunders" in the text which prove that the present Greek text is not inerrant. One of the mistakes in the Greek New Testament may be found in Matthew 23:35 where Zechariah the son of Jehoidai (2Chron. 24:20-21; b.San. 96; j.Ta'anit 69) mistakenly appears as Zechariah the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1). This error was not to be found in the ancient Hebrew copy which Jerome held. Jerome writes of Hebrew Matthew: "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use, for 'Son of Barachias' I find 'of Joiada' written" (Jerome; Com on Mt. 23:35)

Another mistake in the Greek New Testament is to be found in Matthew 27:9 which quotes Zech. 11:12-13 but falsely credits the quote to Jeremiah . The Shem Tob Hebrew correctly attributes the

quote to Zechariah, while the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Pedangta) simply attribute the quote to "the prophet."

Yet another apparent mistake in the Greek text of the New Testament is the name "Cainan" in Luke 3:36. In this passage the name appears but not in the corresponding Masoretic genealogies in

Gen. 10:24; 11:12 and 1Chron. 1:18, 24. (The name does appear in the LXX in Gen. 11:12 but not in the other passages where it would appear if it were a true reading) The Old Syriac does not contain this reading, but reads "Elam" a name which appears in the Masoretic genealogy of Gen. 10:22 and 1Chron. 1:17 as a brother, who apparently is inserted into this family line based on Deut. 25:5-6.

In Mk. 2:26 the Greek NT wrongly informs us that "Abitar" was High Priest at the time King David was given the show bread. In fact Ahimelech the father of Abitar was High Priest at the time (1Sam.

21:1; 22:20). However the Aramaic Old Syriac reading of Mk. 2:26 does not contain this error.

One of the more compelling evidences for the Semitic New Testament may be found in the genealogy of Yeshua as given in Matthew 1. There is a well known mistake in the Greek text of this

passage. While the text itself claims to give three lists of fourteen names (Mt. 1:17), the Greek text contains only 13 names in the last list:

14 names from Abraham to David:

1. Abraham

2. Isaac

3. Jacob

4. Judas

5. Phares

6. Esrom

7. Aram

8. Aminadab

9. Naasson

10. Salmon

11. Boaz

12. Obed

13. Jesse

14. David

14 names from David to the carrying away to Babylon

1. Solomon

2. Roboam

3. Abia

4. Asa

5. Jehosaphat

6. Joram

7. Ozias

8. Joatham

9. Achaz

10. Ezekias

11. Manases

12 Amon

13. Josias

14. Jehonias (carrying away to Babylon)

13 names from carrying away to Babylon to Messiah

1. Salathiel

2. Zorobabel

3. Abiud

4. Eliakim

5. Azur

6. Sadoc

7. Achim

8. Eliud

9. Eleazar

10. Matthan

11. Jacob

12. Joseph

13. Yeshua/Jesus

Now the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing Name "Abner" which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13. In Hebrew and Aramaic "d" and "r" look very much alike and are often misread for each other. In this case a scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript and picked back up with the wrong name, thus omitting "Abner" from the list. The Greek text must have come from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked the name "Abner." There is amazingly clear evidence for this. The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth century until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text has "Aviur" where the Greek has "Aviud" thus catching the error in a sort of "freeze frame" and demonstrating the reliability of the reading in the Hebrew.

The believers at Antioch are clearly called "Greeks," not "core group of Aramaic speaking Jews" as James calls them (Acts 10:20).

If Acts had been first written in Aramaic, most of the conversations in it would have to have been translated from Greek.

Paul's trials before Festus, Felix, Gallio, Sergius Paulus had to have been in Greek. Romans rulers don't know (nor want to know) Aramaic. The riot in the Ephesus theater after Paul's healing of a fortune teller was certainly in Greek. Cornelius the centurion was certainly not a Jew and would not have known Aramaic. He and his friends are clearly called "Gentiles." Nor did the Greeks in Antioch who first accepted the Gospel, who are clearly called "Greeks." The Romans soldier who rescued Paul spoke Greek and Paul had no trouble defending himself in Greek. Paul's nephew spoke to a Roman commander about the Jews' plot to kill Paul in Greek, the nephew apparently fluent. Paul spoke to the centurion and soldiers of the Imperial Regiment on ship on his way to Rome. After the shipwreck, Paul spoke to Publius, the chief of Malta, and the Maltese, again in Greek. When Paul gave up on the Jews at Corinth and said he was going to the Gentiles, they would not have known Aramaic. Throughout the book of Acts, both before and After Paul began his mission trips, the vast majority of the conversations recorded were clearly with Gentiles who could not have known any semitic language. It would make no sense for the vast majority of the original events in the book of Acts to have occurred in Greek and written down after the start of the Roman-Jewish war by a guy (Luke) with a Greek name to Theophilos (who is never identified as a priest in either the NT nor church history) and yet be recorded in a language (Aramaic) foreign to them all.

I noted the above examples before, but there are even more examples of actual Greek (or Latin) conversations in Paul's ministry. A few occasions, he spoke to anyone in the marketplace (eg- Athens), and it names Greeks. While there, he spoke to philosphers who invited him to speak at the Areopagus, where his speech was certainly in Greek. Some of his listeners there believed, including Damaris and Dionysius a member of the Areopagus, and they certainly did not speak Aramaic. A letter from Felix to Emperor Claudius is recorded in Acts. Damaris is another in a long list of believers' names which are Greek. The almost total lack of Hebrew names among Paul's converts is in stark contrast to the mostly Hebrew names of the 12 apostles (though some of them too had Greek names- Philip and Simon). If the believers were Aramaic speakers, it makes no sense that 95% of them would give Greek names to their children. The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) was convened to discuss the many Gentile believers, and wrote a letter to "the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia." When you look at the actual people who had conversations with Paul in Acts, it is obvious that the vast majority were Greeks who had no background in Aramaic or the Hebrew Scriptures.

Assume you mean Acts 11:20 not 10:20. The word “Greeks” here refers to Hellenists (They are the same word in Hebrew and Aramaic). In fact Antioch was the capitol of Syria and the language of Syria was Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic). In fact the Romans coined the term “Syriacos” for Aramaic, because it was the language of the Syrians.

No doubt there were translators for the trials etc. Yeshua was tried by Pilate, but I do not believe Yeshua spoke Latin. In fact Paul was asked in Acts 21:37 “Can you speak Greek?” He responds by saying “I am a Jewish man of Tarsus…” (21:39) (that is an implied “no”) and then addressed the crowd in Hebrew (21:40). Not one time are we told that Paul spoke or wrote Greek. In Acts 26:14 we see Paul receiving revelation in Aramaic.

“The evidence from God’s Word causes us to take issue with the tradition which contends that Paul wrote in Greek. Knowing that Aramaic was his native tongue should prompt us to consider the language of an Aramaic original…”

- An Aramaic Approach to the Church Epistles; Karen Masterson p. 20

(The Way Magazine; March-April 1984)

“We can clearly see concerning the Apostle Paul’s life (about which we know the most) that he would have written in Aramaic.”

- The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament; Daniel L. McConaughy p. 19

(The Way Magazine; May-June 1985)

“The Pauline Epistles were letters written by Paul to small Christian congregations in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. These early Christians were mostly Jews of the Dispersion, men and women of Hebrew origin. Paul on his journeys always spoke in the Jewish synagogues. His first converts were Hebrews. Then came Arameans... Paul emphasizes Hebrew law and history. He refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as our fathers. In his letters and teaching he appeals to the Jewish people to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. Paul's mission was first to his own people... Paul was educated in Jewish law in Jerusalem. He was a member of the Jewish Council. His native language was western Aramaic but he acquired his education through Hebrew and Chaldean or Palestinian Aramaic... He defended himself when on trial in the Hebrew tongue. Acts 22:2... Very early the Epistles were translated into Greek for the use of converts who spoke Greek. Later they were translated into all tongues."

(The New Testament according to the Eastern Text;

by George M. Lamsa; 1940; pp. xi-xii)

I am sure there are many more Greek texts of the New Testament than Aramaic.

Also there are more Latin mss. than Greek, but that in no way indicates a Latin origin for the NT.

I am sure there are many more Greek texts of the New Testament than Aramaic.

Yes it is true that our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew and Hebrews (the only NT books we have in Hebrew) only date back to the middle ages. And it is true that our oldest Aramaic copies of New Testament books date back to the 4th century C.E..

However there are some important facts that those making the above argument fail to account for.

To begin with, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 our oldest Hebrew copies of any Tanak ("Old Testament") books dated back only to the Middle Ages. And our oldest copies of any Tanak books were Greek LXX copies from the fourth century. Yet no one would have argued that this pointed to a Greek origin for the Tanak.

Since no copies of Esther were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, our oldest copies of Ester are still Greek LXX copies from the 4th century. And our oldest copies of Ester in Hebrew only date back to the Middle Ages. Yet this does not in any way indicate that the original language of Ester was Greek.

The time-lapse from the time of the composition of the Book of Esther to our oldest Hebrew copies of Esther is about 1,500 years. This is about the same as the time lapse from the composition of Matthew to our oldest Hebrew copies of Matthew. So the fact that our oldest Hebrew copy of Matthew dates to about 1,500 years after the initial composition of Matthew does NOT negate the Hebrew from being the original.

Although there have been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Matthew found among the Christian Papyri fragments there have also been no Papyri fragments of Hebrew Isaiah or of the Hebrew of any of the other "Old Testament" books found among them. The only Hebrew Papyri fragments of Tanak books have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and not among any discoveries of Christian Papyri fragments. Why should we expect Hebrew Matthew (or any Hebrew or Aramaic NT books) to have been better preserved than the Hebrew Tanak? Whoever were the owners of the NT Papyri fragments we have found clearly had no copies of ANY Hebrew books of the Bible at all even from the "Old Testament" books which we know were composed in Hebrew. So the fact that we have found no Hebrew or Aramaic copies of NT books among them is no more significant than the fact that we find no Hebrew copies of "Old Testament" books among them.

The oldest Greek Papyri fragment of any NT book is P52 which is a fragment of a few verses of John. The word order of this fragment agrees with the Greek Western Type of text which has close agreement with the Aramaic Old Syriac text.

Our oldest **complete** Greek manuscripts of NT books date to the fourth century and that is also the age of our oldest complete Aramaic manuscripts of NT books.

The Hebrew and Aramaic origin of the New Testament cannot be dismissed or disproved by the existence of Greek papyri fragments that predate the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.

You may be confusing Aramaic with Hebrew. Do you know Aramaic and do you know Hebrew? And your complaining about biblical Greek here sounds very political. I am sure there are many more Greek texts of the New Testament than Aramaic.

I know both, they are cognate languages. They are both written with the same set of 22 letters (ALEF being the first and TAV being the last). They share many of the same root words, and a great deal of the same vocabulary.

This in Hebrew it is SHALOM and in Aramaic SHLAMA

In Hebrew camel is GAMEL in Aramaic it is GAMLA

Parts of the Tanak (Old Testament) are written in Aramaic. The Talmuds and Zohar are written in Aramaic.

Most Christians today profess that Sunday is the Sabbath. Others will say that the Sabbath has been done away with and replaced by Sunday “the Lord’s Day” as the day of worship for the “Church”.

The Sabbath was Created

In speaking of the Sabbath Yeshua said:

And he said to them, The Sabbath was created

for a son of man, and not a son of man for the Sabbath.

Thus also, the Son of Man is the Adonai of the Sabbath.

(Mark 2:27-28)

Now there is a lot of information packed into this saying of Yeshua. First of all Yeshua tells us that the Sabbath was “created”. When Elohim created the universe, he did not just create space, but time as well. The Sabbath was actually “created”. Now if we turn to Colossians 1:16 we read:

And by him (Messiah) was created everything that

is in heaven and on earth, and all that is seen, and

all that is not seen…

(Col. 1:16)

Therefore the Sabbath was created by Messiah. Yeshua is Adonai of the Sabbath because he created the Sabbath.

When did Messiah create the Sabbath? The answer is found in the Torah:

And on the sixth day Elohim finished His work which

He made; and he rested on the seventh day from all His

work which he had made.

And Elohim blessed the seventh day, and set it apart;

because that in it He rested from His work which Elohim

in creating had made.

(Gen. 2:2-3)

Elohim finished his work on the sixth day, but he finished His creation on the seventh day. Elohim created the Sabbath not by working, but by resting. Notice that he blessed the seventh day and set it apart. Not just that seventh day, but every seventh day throughout time.

Don’t Tread on Me

The Seventh day was set apart from the time of creation. It was set apart because it’s Creator was Adonai of the Sabbath and was empowered as the Creator to make it set apart. What does it mean for

something to be “set apart” (often translated “holy” or “sacred”)? Well when YHWH addressed Moshe from the burning bush He told Moshe “put off your shoes from off your feet, where the place you

stand is set apart ground.” (Ex. 3:5). This ground was set apart, it belonged to YHWH not to man, it was to be treated with respect, it was not to be trampled on. In the same way the Sabbath is set apart. It belongs to YHWH not to man, it is to be treated with respect and is not to be trampled on. As we read in Isaiah 58:13-14:

If you turn away your foot because of the Sabbath,

from pursuing your business on My set apart day;

and call the Sabbath a delight,

and the set apart of YHWH honorable;

and shall honor it, not doing your wonted ways,

nor pursuing your business, nor speaking thereof;

Then shall you delight yourself in YHWH,

and I will make you to ride upon the high places of the earth,

and I will feed you with the heritage of Ya’akov your father;

for the mouth of YHWH has spoken it.

(Is. 58:13-14)

The Sabbath is set apart because it is His set apart day. It is not our day to do with as we please. We must not trample on the Sabbath and treat it as our own, it belongs to YHWH.

Who was Sabbath Made for?

Another important question is “who was the Sabbath made for?”. Some have taught that the Sabbath was first given as part of the Mosaic Covenant on Mount Sinai and is for the Jews only.

But what does Messiah say? Who was the Sabbath made for? Why did YHWH rest on the Sabbath… was He tired? Clearly He was not tired as we read that He “faints not, neither is weary” (Is. 40:28). So

although he rested on the Shabbat from his work, this was to set the example for us, he did not need to rest so he did not create the Sabbath for himself. Messiah said:

…The Sabbath was created

for a son of man, and not a son of man for the Sabbath.

Thus also, the Son of Man is the Adonai of the Sabbath.

(Mark 2:27-28)

The one who created the Sabbath tells us who he created the Sabbath for. He did not create the Sabbath for the Jews only but he created the Sabbath for “a son of man” (all men). When the commandment to keep the Sabbath was given at Sinai (Ex. 20:8) YHWH said “Remember the Sabbath…” How could YHWH ask them to remember something they had never heard of before? In fact the children of Israel were already observing the Sabbath in Exodus 16 before the ten commandments were given in Exodus 20. The Sabbath transcends the Mosaic Covenant.

However even if the Sabbath had been part of the Mosaic Covenant, it would not have meant that the Sabbath was only for Jews. The Torah says that “One Torah shall be to him that is home born, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you.” (Ex. 12:49). Yeshua sent his Jewish talmidim (disciples) out to “teach all the goyim (gentiles)… and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt. 28:19-20).

The Sabbath was not created simply for “the Jews” but for all mankind. Thus when there was a debate over whether gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved, the Jerusalem assembly commented:

For Moshe, from the first generations, had proclaimers

in every city in the synagogues, who read him on every

Sabbath.

(Acts 15:21)

They assumed that gentile believers would be going to synagogue and hearing “Moses” (the Torah; the Five Books of Moses) read every Sabbath.

The Sabbath was created and set apart for all mankind at the time of creation. It was therefore kept by such as Adam, Enoch, Noah and Avraham.

Who Done It?

So if the Sabbath was created and set apart by Messiah at the time of creation, who changed the day of worship to Sunday?

Many people have been misled into believing that Constantine was responsible for the corruption and Gentilization of Christianity and

moving the day of worship to Sunday.

On 7 March 321, Constantine I did in fact decree that Sunday was to be observed as the Roman day of rest saying:

On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people

residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the

country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and

lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that

another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting;

lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the

bounty of heaven should be lost.

While Constantine certainly added to the apostasy of early

Christianity, he was not the first. It was in fact Ignatius of

Antioch who rebelled against the Jerusalem Council, usurped their

authority, seceded from Judaism, declared the Torah to have been

abolished, replaced the Seventh Day Sabbath with Sunday worship and

founded a new, non-Jewish religion which he named "Christianity".

Paul said to the Ephesians on his last visit to them:

Watch, therefore, over your nefeshot

and over the flock which the Ruach HaKodesh

has appointed you overseers [bishops]

that you feed the assembly of Messiah,

which he purchased by his blood.

I know that after I am gone

fierce wolves will enter in among you

without mercy upon the flock.

And also from among you there will rise up men speaking

perverse things, so that they might turn away the talmidim

to follow after them.

(Acts 20:28-30)

Paul seems to indicate that after his death leaders would begin to rise up from the overseers [bishops] in his stead that would draw people to follow themselves and draw them away from Torah. In fact

Paul died in 66 C.E. and the first overseer (Bishop) of Antioch to take office after his death was Ignatius in 98 C.E.. Ignatius fulfilled Paul's words precisely. After taking the office of Bishop

over Antioch Ignatius sent out a series of epistles to otherassem blies. His letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallianns, Romans, Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans as well as a personal letter

to Polycarp overseer of Smyrnaea have survived to us.

The Ancient Nazarene Historian and commentator Hegesippus (c. 180 CE) writes of the time immediately following the death of Shim'on, who succeeded Ya'akov HaTzadik as Nasi of the Nazarene Sanhedrin

and who died in 98 CE:

Up to that period (98 CE) the Assembly had remained like a

virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who

were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the

proclaiming of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of

concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of Emissaries

had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of

men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the inspired

Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the

confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery

of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the emissaries any

longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted

head to oppose the proclaiming of the truth by proclaiming

"knowledge falsely so called."

(Hegesippus the Nazarene; c. 185 CE; quoted by Eusebius in

Eccl. Hist. 3:32)

Hegisippus indicates the apostasy began the very same year that Ignatious became bishop of Antioch!

Up until the time of Ignatius, matters of dispute that arose at Antioch were ultimately referred to the Jerusalem Council (as in Acts 14:26-15:2). Ignatius usurped the authority of the Jerusalem

council, declaring himself as the local bishop as the ultimate authority over the assembly of which he was bishop, and likewise declaring the same as true of all other bishops and their local

assemblies. Ignatius writes:

…being subject to your bishop…

…run together according to the will of God.

Jesus… is sent by the will of the Father;

As the bishops… are by the will of Jesus Christ.

(Eph. 1:9, 11)

…your bishop…I think you happy who are so joined to him,

as the church is to Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is to the

Father… Let us take heed therefore, that we not set ourselves

against the bishop, that we may be subject to God….

We ought to look upon the bishop, even as we would

upon the Lord himself.

(Eph. 2:1-4)

…obey your bishop…

(Mag. 1:7)

Your bishop presiding in the place of God…

…be you united to your bishop…

(Mag. 2:5, 7)

…he… that does anything without the bishop…

is not pure in his conscience…

(Tral. 2:5)

…Do nothing without the bishop.

(Phil. 2:14)

See that you all follow your bishop,

As Jesus Christ, the Father…

(Smy. 3:1)

By exalting the power of the office of bishop (overseer) and demanding the absolute authority of the bishop over the assembly, Ignatius was actually making a power grab by thus taking absolute

authority over the assembly at Antioch and encouraging other Gentile overseers to follow suite.

Moreover Ignatius drew men away from Torah and declared the Torah to have been abolished, not only at Antioch but at other Gentile assemblies to which he wrote:

Be not deceived with strange doctrines;

nor with old fables which are unprofitable.

For if we still continue to live according to the Jewish Law,

we do confess ourselves not to have received grace…

(Mag. 3:1)

But if any one shall preach the Jewish law unto you,

hearken not unto him…

(Phil. 2:6)

It is also Ignatius who first replaces the Seventh Day Sabbath with Sunday worship, writing:

...no longer observing sabbaths, but keeping the Lord's day

in which also our life is sprung up by him, and through

his death...

(Magnesians 3:3)

Having seceded from the authority of Jerusalem, declared the Torah abolished and replacing the Sabbath with Sunday, Ignatius had created a new religion. Ignatius coins a new term, never before used, for this new religion which he calls "Christianity" and which he makes clear is new and distinct religion from Judaism. He writes:

let us learn to live according to the rules of Christianity,

for whosoever is called by any other name

besides this, he is not of God….

It is absurd to name Jesus Christ, and to Judaize.

For the Christian religion did not embrace the Jewish.

But the Jewish the Christian…

(Mag. 3:8, 11)

By the end of the first century Ignatius of Antioch had fulfilled Paul's warning. He seceded from Judaism and founded a new religion which he called "Christianity". A religion which rejected the

Torah, and replaced the Seventh Day Sabbath with Sunday Worship.

Wasn’t Yeshua Raised on Sunday?

The reason most Christians give for observing Sunday as the day of worship is that Sunday is the day that Messiah was raised from the Dead. The well known Dispensationalist Theologian F.F. Bruce in

answering the question “Why do Christians observe Sunday… instead of Saturday?” writes:

… we need not look for a reason for that when we

consider that our Lord’s resurrection took place

on that day.

(Answers to Questions; F. F. Bruce; p. 242)

Now some Sabbatarians have argued that the resurrection was not on Sunday but on Saturday, but that is not really the point. Sabbath keepers are guilty of having allowed Sunday keepers to change the

subject. The question is not “which day was Messiah resurrected?” because there is not one word in the Scriptures about observing that day as the day of worship in place of the Sabbath. The only question before us is “which day is the Sabbath?” and does man have authority to make another day set apart and transplant the day of worship to that other day?

What Would Yeshua Do?

A common T-shirt in Christian circles today says WWJD “What Would Jesus Do?” The implication is that we should act as Yeshua acted. As the Scripture says:

He who says, I am in him, ought to conduct himself

according to his conduct.

(1Jn. 2:6)

So how did Yeshua conduct himself regarding the day of worship? The Scriptures tell us:

And he entered the Synagogue, on the day of

the Sabbath, as he was accustomed.

(Luke 4:16)

Paul himself followed this adage himself saying “Be you followers of me, even as I also am of Messiah” (1Cor. 11:1) thus we also read of Paul that he was also accustomed to going to Synagogue on the

Sabbath (Acts 17:1-2).

Rev 1:7-8

8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

NKJV

Rev 1:11-12

11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

NKJV

Rev 21:4-6

5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." 6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.

NKJV

Rev 22:12-13

13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

NKJV

Here is another of the many examples of the original language of the New Testament, the alpha and the omega. Sorry but these are not Aramaic. Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet.

You are using circular reasoning, quoting the Greek NT (or an English translation of it) to prove the Greek origin. In fact the Aramaic text of Revelation has ALEF and TAV in three of these places, and omits the phrase from one:

7 Behold, He comes with clouds, and all eyes will see Him, even also those who pierced

Him: and all the tribes of the land will mourn concerning Him. Yes and Amen.

8 I am Alef and Tav, says Adonai YHWH: He who is, and was, and is to come; who

is the Almighty.

(Rev. 1:7-8 HRV)

That said, Those [things] that you see, write in a book and send to the seven

assemblies: to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis,

and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.

12 And I turned, to know the voice that spoke with me: and when I turned, I saw seven

menorahs of gold.

(Rev. 1:11-12 HRV)

4 And He will wipe all tears from their eyes, and there will be no more death, neither

grief nor crying, nor will there be any more pain, for His sake,

5 And it went away. And He who sat on the throne said to me: Behold, I make all

[things] new. And He said to me: Write: these words are Faithful and True.

6 And He said to me: I am Alef and I am Tav--the beginning and the end. To the

thirsty, I will give from the fountain of living water, freely.

(Rev. 21:4-6 HRV)

12 Behold, I come quickly, and My reward [is] with Me: and I will give to every man

according to his work.

13 I am Alef and I am Tav, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end.

(Rev. 22:12-13 HRV)

Now if the terms ALPHA and OMEGA in the Greek version of Revelation prove a Greek origin (and they don't), then the use of ALEF and TAV (HEBREW/ARAMAIC LETTERS) in the Aramaic version would also prove an Aramaic origin.

It has long been recognized that the New Testament is written in very poor Greek grammar, but very good Semitic grammar. Many sentences are inverted with a verb > noun format characteristic of

Semitic languages. Furthermore, there are several occurrences of the redundant "and". A number of scholars have shown in detail the Semitic grammar embedded in the Greek New Testament books.

(See: Our Translated Gospels By Charles Cutler Torrey; Documents of the Primitive Church by Charles Cutler Torrey; An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts by Matthew Black; The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel by Charles Fox Burney; The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels by Frank Zimmerman and Semitisms of the Book of Acts by Max Wilcox)

In addition to the evidence for Semitic grammar embedded in the Greek New Testament, the fact that serious grammatical errors are found in the Greek New Testament books may be added. Speaking of the

Greek of Revelation, Charles Cutler Torrey states that it "...swarms with major offenses against Greek grammar." He calls it "linguistic anarchy", and says, "The grammatical monstrosities of the book, in their number and variety and especially in their startling character, stand alone in the history of literature." Torrey gives ten examples listed below:

1. Rev. 1:4 "Grace to you, and peace, from he who is and who was and

who is to come" (all nom. case)

2. Rev. 1:15 "His legs were like burnished brass (neut. gender

dative case) as in a furnace purified" (Fem. gender sing.

no., gen. case)

3. Rev. 11:3 "My witness (nom.) shall prophesy for many days clothed

(accus.) in sackcloth."

4. Rev. 14:14 "I saw on the cloud one seated like unto a Son of Man

(accus.) having (nom.) upon his head a golden crown."

5. Rev. 14:19 "He harvested the vintage of the earth, and cast it

into the winepress (fem), the great [winepress] (masc.) of the wrath

of God."

6. Rev. 17:4 "A golden cup filled with abominations (gen.) and with

unclean things" (accus.)

7. Rev. 19:20 "The lake of blazing (fem.) fire (neut.).

8. Rev. 20:2 "And he seized the dragon (accus.), the old serpent

(nom.) who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him."

9. Rev. 21:9 "Seven angels holding seven bowls (accus.) filled (gen.)

with the seven last plagues."

10. Rev. 22:5 "They have no need of lamplight (gen.) nor of sunlight

(accus.)."

The disciples were first called "Christians" in Antioch. "Christ-ians" is a Greek word. If the believers were speaking Aramaic and Luke was writing in Aramaic, they would have been called "Messianians." This was a name for the group, and as such it would not have been changed to "Christians" even if it was first written in Aramaic and translated to Greek. The believers at Antioch are clearly called "Greeks," not "core group of Aramaic speaking Jews" as James calls them (Acts 10:20).

I assume you refer to Acts 11:20 not 10:20. Yes it says they were first CALLED "Christians" at Antioch. In other words someone else was calling them that. Who was the someone else? Well they were in Antioch (capitol of Syria) where the native tongue was Syriac (Aramaic) so these would have been Hellenists or Roman Soldiers.

Here are some interesting facts about the term "Christian(s)"

1. It appears only three times in the entire Bible.

2. No believer is ever described as calling themselves a Christian. It appears to have been a derogatory term used by non-believers.

3. Paul never uses the term. It never appears in any of his letters, and it never passes from his lips in Acts. Though in Acts he does identify himself as a Pharisee.

Much has been made of Josephus. But by the time he wrote, the Hebrews as a society were virtually dead (and most of their language users with it). At the fall of the temple in 69 AD, literally one half of the 2 million population of Israel were dead as a result of the war. The slash and burn strategy of the Romans made much of the country unlivable. They literally burned and uprooted every house, building and tree over many square miles. Politically, it's a language of disgraced losers-- something the Romans actually put on coins.(The coins say, "Judea captive")

This is simply false. In fact the Jews of Judea revolted again in 132 CE with a three year success i which they even minted their own currency... with Hebrew inscriptions on them.

It would make no sense for the vast majority of the original events in the book of Acts to have occurred in Greek and written down after the start of the Roman-Jewish war by a guy (Luke) with a Greek name to another guy with a Greek name (who no one can verify was a Jew of any kind) and yet be recorded in a language (Aramaic) foreign to them all.

The question of the Luke/Acts tradition holds particular interest to us. This is because the common wisdom has been to portray Luke as a Greek speaking, Greek writing Gentile who wrote his account to the Gentiles. The reality of the matter is (whether Luke himself knew Greek or not) that Luke was most certainly written in a Semitic language. as Charles Cutler Torrey states:

In regard to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest and most constant evidence of being a translation.

- C.C. Torrey; Our Translated Gospels p. lix

It is commonly argued that Luke was a Greek who would have written in Greek.

Actually Luke was a Syrian of Antioch (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:4) so his native language would have been Syriac, an Aramaic dialect.

It is often also argued that Luke and Acts were written to a Greek named "Theophilus".

Actually Theophilus was a Jew who had been High Priest from 37-41 CE (Josephus; Ant. 18:5:3). A Syrian convert to Judaism such as Luke would likely have written the High Priest in Aramaic

Well I suppose that's one way to put it. I'm not so sure that's the best way to communicate that He came to make available the new birth, wherewith the law is written in a man's heart and not just on the scrolls. Romans is an interesting piece of work there in that respect. Think of the audience.

Actually they had the Torah in their hearts in so-called "Old Testament Times". In Deut. 6:6 and 11:18 one is commanded in the Torah to have the Torah in ones heart:

And these words which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.

(Deut. 6:5 HRV)

Therefore shall you lay up these, My words, in your heart and in your soul. And you

shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your

eyes.

(Deut. 11:18 HRV)

Where are you copying and pasting your information from James?

From my own writings, past posts on the internet and from my book.

Much of the material can be found (along with much more detailed, documented, internal and external evidence) in my book:

The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

also some of it is in the introduction to:

the Hebraic Roots Version Scriptures

Printed edition:

http://www.isr-messianic.org/pubs/hrv.shtml

Etext:

http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

Now while many of the emissaries were spreading the Messianic movement eastward, Paul was taking the movement into the Western world. From his headquarters at Antioch, the capitol of Syria, Paul conducted several missionary journeys into Europe. At this time there came a need for Greek versions of New Testament books. As time progressed several events occurred which resulted in a great rise of anti-Semitism in the West. This began when the Jews revolted against the Roman Empire in 70 C.E.. A second revolt by Jews in Egypt occurred in 116 C.E.. Things were further complicated by the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 C.E.. In the Roman Empire anti-Semitism became very popular, and even patriotic. In the West, Gentile Christianity sought to distance itself from Judaism and Jewish customs. The Greek text began to be favored over the Semitic text and many Semitic writings were subsequently destroyed. By 325 C.E. anti-Semitism and the priority given in the West to the Greek Scriptures had solidified. Constantine invaded Rome, making himself emperor. Constantine proclaimed Christianity to be the Catholic (universal) religion, thus making Christianity the enforced state religion of the Roman Empire. Before this occurred one could be killed for being a Christian, afterward one could be killed for not being a "Christian." Constantine, who was an anti-Semite, called the council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to standardize Christianity. Jews were excluded from the meeting. Jewish practices were officially banned and the Greek translations officially replaced the original Semitic Scriptures.

Having alienated the Jewish Nazarenes in 325 at the Council of Nicea, subsequent councils alienated the Assyrians and Syrians over Christological debates. The Nestorian Assyrians were alienated in 431 C.E. at the Council of Ephesus while the Jacobite Syrians were alienated in 451 C.E. at the Council of Chalcedon. The division between the Semitic peoples of the Near East, and the Roman Catholic Church grew ever steeper. With the rise of Islam in the Near East the Near Eastern Christians were even further separated from their European counterparts in the West. Relations between the Christian West and the Islamic Near East were non-existent. As time progressed, in the West the Roman Catholic Church began to suppress the Scriptures in Europe. Those who would try to make the Scriptures available to the common man were often burned alive. Such suppression was impossible in the Near East, where the Scriptures were already in Aramaic, the common language of the people. When the Protestant reformation emerged, claiming the Greek New Testament as the original, it was a time when most Europeans were not even aware that an Aramaic version existed.

It was in this atmosphere, in 1516 that the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was published in Europe. This edition, published by Erasmus, would become known as the Textus Receptus, and serve as the standard Greek text until the 19th Century. The first edition of this work was based solely on six manuscripts, while later editions used only ten. None of these manuscripts were complete, and only one was even particularly old, dating to the tenth century. Since none of his manuscripts were complete, Erasmus was forced to invent many of his Greek portions of Revelation by translating from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. It was this poor edition which served as the evidence by which the West would embrace the Greek as the original. This edition would later serve as the basis for the King James Version.

I've mentioned before that a lack of twi suing tends to support they were

UNABLE to sue, since they'll sue anything and anyone they can.

That having been said, I really look for more than that as support for any claim.

I'm still hoping for something we can look through.

Not simply to see if what you said is correct, but the general subject of twi lawsuits

interests the locals on the board, of whom I am one.

Let me clarify... TWI DID sue. They filed the lawsuit about a year ago and we went through a process of discovery and depositions, but before the suit actually came to trial they settled. As part of the settlement they have issued us a permanent license with no monetary consideration. Also as part of the settlement we have maintained that there was no copyright infringement on our part, however we have also agreed as part of this license agreement, to henceforth give credit in editions of the HRV to the TWI version.