|
|
Post by alon on Mar 9, 2015 19:33:07 GMT -8
I have been using the Pimsleur basic modern Hebrew program for the last month and its been coming along well but its hard at times when you dont have another person to talk to other than yourself. Kip, ma'shlomcha? How far along are you? I have the Pimsleur system as well. I'm just getting into it, and honestly I get confused a lot; but that is my normal state, so may be just me. They do a good job of breaking things down though, so if you wanted to try some conversations I bet we could transliterate enough to be understood (and probably provide some of the linguists here with a bit of hilarity as well  ). Shalom, l'itraot. Dan C  ) I should start it up again, but honestly there are more important things to do with my limited time. Drat, and I really wanted to impress everyone by interjecting kewl Hebraic turns of speech ... 
Dan C |
|
Loxody
Junior Member
Posts: 63 
|
Post by Loxody on Jun 17, 2015 5:52:29 GMT -8
I try to speak Hebrew with my friends who understand it...but as yet my Hebrew is rather limited, which limits how often I speak it. lol. I don't think it is too holy for ordinary use. If we think about it, it was used for centuries by Israelites every day of their lives. Shalom, Nachshon  or reading the parashah  in Hebrew. (Love the emoticons BTW!)  |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 17, 2015 8:57:18 GMT -8
We are just now gradually adding in words here and there. I really appreciate just bring able to hear it online at the synagogue service. We also listen to a Psalm in Hebrew online after we read it just to see if we can pick up any words and phrases as they are often very similar or repeated from psalm to psalm and verse to verse. That had been helpful and enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 13, 2022 11:25:43 GMT -8
I have been taking an occasional intro to Greek class from a Greek Orthodox church for about the last half year, and it got me more interested in Hebrew. The NT era (1st century AD) has the early Nazarene and Christian believers speakers using Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and maybe Coptic to a significant extent, besides all the Pentecostal languages in Acts. Meanwhile, the rabbis read and wrote Hebrew, but apparently in their debates and discussions in this 1st century period they were already using Aramaic for religious affairs. Mediterranean Jews used some Greek too: "Sanhedrin" is even a Greek-based Hebrew word and about 40 percent of Jewish grave inscriptions from the the 1st century in Palestine used Greek, not to mention Philo and the Septuagint version being in Greek. If one traces the Israelites' roots back far enough, the Bible says that Abraham was an "Aramaean" and that he and his successors had a strong policy of only taking wives from the Aramaeans instead of the Canaanites. Thus Jacob ("Israel") took the Aramaean Rachel for his wife. And 1st Temple Israelite Hebrew appears to be a Canaanite/Phoenician type language using a Phoenician/Canaanite style of script. So arguably Aramaic would seem to be a core language for root Biblical Israelite heritage (Jacob's heritage), as well as for the apostolic community. The Gospels repeatedly specify Jesus speaking and giving miraculous commands in Aramaic. "Maranatha" is how Paul calls for Yeshua's return in the end of one epistle. Nonetheless, Hebrew seems really special for me in the Biblical context because it's the language of the prophetic writings, David, the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Zechariah. Daniel uses much of both Aramaic and Hebrew. Going through the Hebrew alphabet, it's interesting how much I am vaguely familiar with, as I learned Russian started as a teenager. When Cyril and Methodius invented the slavic Cyrillic alphabet, they mostly used the Greek and Latin alphabets for it, but some Slavic sounds don't exist in Greek or Latin. So for those sounds, instead of combining letters like English does (C combined with H in English = Ch sound in "Church"), they used Hebrew letters. Ш is the Hebrew letter Shin, and there are also the letters "Ц" as in Hebrew Tzaddik and "Щ". One theory is that the Russian letter Ч (Pronounced like Ch in "Church") comes from Ц. It looks like a rotated upside down "h". The Russian letter for G is the Greek letter Gamma Г, whereas the cursive for the Hebrew gimmel looks like the Russian cursive for the same sound.  is the Hebrew cursive. Hebrew Gimmel looks like a Greek Gamma, but with a leg on the left side. Here is the Russian cursive for the capital and lowercase forms of Г:  I read that Russian Б, as in Beta, comes From the Hebrew letter "Bet", but to me it looks like a version of a lowercase English b. Paleo Hebrew Dalet looked a bit like the Greek Delta that is the basis for the Russian Д that sounds like the English D. But nowadays Hebrew Dalet looks like a backwards Greek Г (Gamma). |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 13, 2022 17:15:25 GMT -8
Your information is interesting, and I agree. Nothing happens in a vacuum, especially languages and alphabets. There was a lot of borrowing throughout the Mediteranian, middl-east and slavic countries. With a people like the Hebrews who were taken into captivity or their lands occupied for so much of their existence this would have been especially true. The amazing thing is not that there is borrowed words and letters, but that there was not a lot more. In fact, it is a miracle the Hebrew language was still spoken in the 1st century and even today!
Those letters that make up the NT were, I believe originally written in Hebrew. The Jews in the Diaspora would have spoken 2 languages- the language of their home, and Hebrew. Everywhere there was a synagogue, there was a Hebrew school. Not an Aramaic or Greek or anything else, but a Hebrew school. The only language all the rabbis would hold in common was Hebrew. So if you were writing an encyclical letter to the Jews of the Diaspora, what language would you use?
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 14, 2022 23:34:38 GMT -8
There was a lot of borrowing throughout the Mediteranian, middl-east and slavic countries. With a people like the Hebrews who were taken into captivity or their lands occupied for so much of their existence this would have been especially true. The amazing thing is not that there is borrowed words and letters, but that there was not a lot more. I forgot to add: "Hebrew" as a language in Russian is called "Ivrit." The Catholic Church kept its liturgy in England and Western Europe in Latin until the 1970's, and Latin was for a very long time a "Lingua Franca" in England and Western Europe. French is practically a version of Latin, and French made a huge influence on English after the Norman conquest. Greek and Latin were academic languages in the West. Plus, English is a "Centum" Western European language like Greek and Latin. So, much of English has Latin and Greek roots, especially when we use religious terms. "Religion" is a great example. The origin of the term is: Faith is Middle English, from Old French "feid", from Latin "fides." I find this commonality helpful when picking apart the Greek NT or Greek LXX, or visiting Greek EO Churches, not knowing Greek myself. Hebrew on the other hand, although it comes across as mystical, is also more mysterious. The Slavic experience however is much different linguistically. It's a Satum Indo European language, so its base is more like Sanskrit and Hindi than Greek or Latin. The Slavs were barely under the Eastern Roman empire, and that only counts for the Balkans, not the Russians. When the Greeks missionized the Slavs in the 9th century, they translated the service into Slavonic. So the Russians have always used the liturgy and books in Slavonic. Often even Church terms are Slavonic instead of Greek based. "Religia" is the Russian word for religion, but they have traditionally used the Russian term for faith (Vera) more often it seems than Americans would in place of the term "religion." Example: Historically, American Christians might speak of the Orthodox "religion", whereas Russian Orthodox might have spoken of the "Orthodox faith". The Russian word "Vera" (faith) comes from Old Slavic, which in turn gets it from Indo-European. It shares the same root as the Latin word "verus", meaning true, but isn't known to come from Latin. Poland and the western Russian Empire (Odessa especially) are known to have had major historic Ashkenazi populations that came from medieval Germany. I guess that the Germans expelled them but Poland and the Russian Empire allowed them to stay in that region. In any case, it doesn't seem that they made a major impact on Russian language per se, although certainly there is some secondary cultural historic impact. Odessa was one of Russia/Ukraine's major historical cultural centers. Yiddish is mostly German, with a minority of it being Aramaic and Hebrew. Any Slavic in Yiddish, like the word "boychik" for boy using the Slavic ending "-chik" is pretty peripheral to Yiddish. Personally I don't agree with the Khazar theory for most of Ashkenazi Jews, including Ashkenazi Russian Jews. Ashkenaz means "Germany" and Ashkenazis spoke Yiddish, with that being basically a German-Aramaic/Hebrew language, not a Turkic one like the Khazars spoke. The Khazars really do have some traceable descendants however, and as I recall they are Turkic and based in what is today Crimea/south Ukraine. Further, as I recall, the medieval Khazar empire was rather tolerant in its religious politics, so it didn't convert the people under their rule en masse. This helps explain why one might not find a large Jewish population actually descended from the Khazars. You are making a good point about Jews across the world holding Hebrew in common and this commonality making Hebrew a good language to communicate with Jews in across the world. This is a factor in how Hebrew could be used for Israelis today who immigrated from other nations from India to America. From what I read online, Aramaic seemed to be the most common everyday language for Jews globally in the first century AD, and probably until the Islamic conquests made Arabic supplant Aramaic as the Lingua Franca of the Middle East. The Talmud uses Aramaic-influenced Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as Aramaic. Maimonides' Letter to Yemen comes to my mind as an important text because it talks about Daniel's and/or Isaiah's Messianic prophecies, and this Letter was written in Judeo-Arabic, and then Ma-Arabi translated it into Hebrew. There is a lot of Greek-language Jewish material from the 1st century too, like Philo and apocryphal/pseudepigraphal/non-canonical writings that we talked about elsewhere. Maybe most of that corpus was written first in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated contemporaneously in Greek. In the case of Paul's epistles, most of them are named as being for Greek or Latin regions (Galatians, Romans, etc.), and people named in them often are Greek or Roman (Titus, Hermas, etc.). So one factor in deciding the language is whether one wants to include gentiles in the audience. A Christian-Nazarene audience in Athens might have Greeks and Jews, and while both groups might understand Greek, it seems that only the Jews there would understand Hebrew and Aramaic well. My guess is that the apostles' mentality was that they were to preach Yeshua/Jesus to the world like in the Great Commission, and the Pentecost event and Paul's glossolalia was meant to facilitate preaching to non-Hebrew speakers. Josephus wrote some major works first in Aramaic (now lost) and then a second version in Greek. Then a translation was made in Latin. The Book of Judith was written first in Hebrew or Aramaic centuries before Yeshua's time, then translated into Greek. Then the original Semitic text was lost. Then in medieval times, a shortened Hebrew version circulated among the Jewish population and Judith became a popular figure in Jewish medieval tradition. It's commonly considered that the medieval Hebrew version is a take on the Christians' Biblical Greek text. Now in modern times we have the Dead Sea Scrolls with an ancient copy of the Book of Judith in the original language. What a history! |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 15, 2022 15:03:11 GMT -8
Whenever you see the term "faith" in English, in most of either the Hebrew or Greek "source" versions of biblical text "trust" would be a better translation; though there are also connotations of "faith." Even in Roman paganism/Latin, Fides was the goddess of trust and good faith. I am not sure whether the term comes from her name, or more likely her name comes from the term. Either way, the 'connotational' relationship is undeniable. But this is our problem. The most difficult thing to do in translation is to learn to think like those speaking the language AT THE TIME the text was written. Add to this ancient writing media were fragile. Papyrus or skins deteriorate, and the inks all tended to flake as the scrolls were wound. Add to this:
I believe God chose (or more likely developed) Hebrew to make it ambiguous, difficult to translate directly. It resembles other ancient regional dialects in this, as nothing happens in a vacuum. However God uses even paganism to His own ends. Avram came out of a pagan culture, and the entire Bible could be said to have as a major theme the shedding of paganism by all of us. Adam worshiped Chava more than his God, Chava trusted the serpent, and both venerated the forbidden fruit. We, like the first couple have spent our lives repenting for those very sins.Back to the ancient language, many (most) biblical texts and words can be thought of differently, and many interpretations and doctrines can be built on these. However consider this very Jewish idea very well stated by a Danish scientist:“The opposite of a fact is a falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” – Niels Bohr I would suggest that instead of trying to find the "true meaning/translation," you might focus more on what can be learned from all the different ideas. Foe example, while I do not believe amillennialism to be true, one of the profound ideas I see represented there is that things do not just 'occur,' they 'recur,' some many times; especially the things portrayed in Revelation about the end times. And those relate directly back to Daniel's 'timeline.' Our Greek minds love timelines, but to the ancient Hebrews time was not plotted on a line, or even a circle, but on a spiral upon which our 'line' intersected at many points. More likely the common man thought more in terms of our own saying, "History repeats itself." But even in Judaism today they do not consider prophecy to be meaningful as we do with our lists. To them prophecy has meaning because the prophet, and especially if the prophecy itself was vetted in their history. For example, we see the virgin birth as both a miracle and a sign (which is true). But to the Jew the more important thing is this had already been prophesied by Isaiah to King Ahaz and the prophecy fulfilled:Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The term translated "virgin" is 'almah," which can also mean 'young woman' or even 'hidden.' And it did happen, as a prophetess soon thereafter gave birth to a son who met the criteria, as did she as she was a young virgin until she conceived, though through the usual manner. Both prophet and prophecy were thus vetted as true. Therefore when Yeshua met the requirements in this and other prophecies about Messiah (also vetted), that means more to the Jew than our checklist. We should look for these recurrences and learn from both them and from the different translations or various interpretations. All may hold profound truths, and some of them may be exact opposite ideas. But as long as they do not contradict other scripture, especially Torah, we may be able to learn more this way than by looking for the one great and true translation. I would imagine this is true in the EO and other eastern 'faiths.' Just as Latin is more prevalent in the RC church; just as Yiddish is more prevalent in Jewish communities from Eastern Europe. Even in contemporary Hebrew, the two prevalent groups being Ashkenazi and Sephardic, both have their own way of talking. Sephardim tend to accentuate the last syllable of words, where Ashkenazi Jews tend to accentuate earlier syllables. Kind of like my wife and I talking. She speaks English with (of all things) a British accent. I speak not only Americanized English, but with a west Texas & New Mexican accent. Talk about "two people(s) divided by a common language!" But we generally get to an understanding (eventually). Doesn't matter one iota. His audience was the Jews in the diaspora. Make them believers and they were to then be witnesses to the Gentiles. This is how it always was. Making pagan Gentiles believers then immediately sending them out to 'witness' to others can only result in heresy. The idea was simple. In the words of Ya'aqov (James), and with Rav Shaul (Paul) present and in agreement: Acts 15:19-21 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Every Shabbat Torah (Moses) is taught, even to this day. Even here there are two of us who post a weekly parishah, a Torah Portion for study. New Gentile believers were give four things to immediately do to be allowed into fellowship, then every SHABBAT they were given instruction in SYNAGOGUE. The term used there is συναγωγή sunagōgē, so a mistranslation to 'church' would have been too obvious. Gentile believers went to synagogue on Shabbat, not church on Sunday (the day Constantine venerated for Sol Invictus), and they learned Torah. They would also have learned other things, but their base as new converts to the Jewish Sect of the Notsarim as Torah.
Paul didn't want to write to Gentiles. What good would that do? Their only understanding would be from a pagan point of reference. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Romans 3:1. The "oracles of God" past and their understanding was committed to the Jews, and those same "oracles of God" which would much later be compiled and canonized, the very encyclicals of which we speak were also given by Jews, to Jews through the instrument of the Holy Spirit. No pagan could then or now on his own appreciate or understand those letters. Rav Shaul never babbled. He never engaged in glossolalia. In fact, he taught order in the assembly. In his famous discourse on keeping order in the service, he said: 1 Corinthians 14:26-28 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
A 'tongue' meant an understandable language. And they had to know in advance there was an interpreter present; one who could translate from the Hebrew into the 'tongue' spoken by another. You cannot count on that if you just babble. I have seen this happen in Pentecostal churches more than once. They also were instructed to speak/interpret one at a time. Order, not many speaking at once. If you speak alone, another who speaks both languages may correct you if you make a mistake. If everyone speaks at once mistakes may go uncorrected and the lesson generally will devolve into many conversations which may drift or go to another topic. This passage is a classic example of taking scripture out of context, misinterpreting it, then building a major block of doctrine around it. Read in context: context of the rest of the chapter, the rest of the epistle, and the rest of the works of Paul. He never taught nor practiced glossolalia. As I said, we need to look at different ideas or interpretations to learn from them. However if an epistle of Paul disagrees with either Paul or Torah, then either:
- it is a lie
--- not rom Paul
--- changed either in translation or by direct alteration, usually to fit a philosophy or doctrine of the copyist
- we misunderstand
--- because of our own pagan tendencies and thought processes
--- because of linguistic limitations
----- for example, at the time there was no word for "legalism" in either Hebrew or Greek; so he used the only word he had, torah
----- torah can mean instruction (usually the better translation, but contextually not here), either good or bad
--- or more often because that is how we have been taught to believeRav Shaul, when writing as a shaliach tzibur, a representative of the assembly, cannot teach against Torah nor can he disagree with himself. If that happens, something is very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 15, 2022 18:24:48 GMT -8
Whenever you see the term "faith" in English, in most of either the Hebrew or Greek "source" versions of biblical text "trust" would be a better translation; though there are also connotations of "faith."
By comparison, in Russian, "Vera" means also "belief". Examples: "Ya veruyu vas" = I believe you. The Nicene Creed in Russian/Slavonic in liturgy/service begins "Ya veruyu v edinogo Boga" = I believe in one God..." Back to the ancient language, many (most) biblical texts and words can be thought of differently, and many interpretations and doctrines can be built on these. However consider this very Jewish idea very well stated by a Danish scientist:“The opposite of a fact is a falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” – Niels Bohr I would suggest that instead of trying to find the "true meaning/translation," you might focus more on what can be learned from all the different ideas. ... For example, we see the virgin birth as both a miracle and a sign (which is true). But to the Jew the more important thing is this had already been prophesied by Isaiah to King Ahaz and the prophecy fulfilled:Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The term translated "virgin" is 'almah," which can also mean 'young woman' or even 'hidden.' And it did happen, as a prophetess soon thereafter gave birth to a son who met the criteria, as did she as she was a young virgin until she conceived, though through the usual manner. Both prophet and prophecy were thus vetted as true. Therefore when Yeshua met the requirements in this and other prophecies about Messiah (also vetted), that means more to the Jew than our checklist. We should look for these recurrences and learn from both them and from the different translations or various interpretations. All may hold profound truths, and some of them may be exact opposite ideas. But as long as they do not contradict other scripture, especially  , we may be able to learn more this way than by looking for the one great and true translation. Good point. In case the literal or intended translation or meaning of a verse is non-Messianic, there can still be a second meaning and fulfillment in a second, Messianic form. Tentatively, the prophecy about "...until Messiah Prince seven weeks and sixty two weeks..." in Dan. 9:25 could be about both a figure who came in seven weeks and another figure, the Davidic Messiah, who came after ( 7 + 62 = ) 69 weeks. Kind of like my wife and I talking. She speaks English with (of all things) a British accent. I speak not only Americanized English, but with a west Texas & New Mexican accent. Talk about "two people(s) divided by a common language!" But we generally get to an understanding (eventually). Nice. Furthermore, the idea of a different language (more often said to be Aramaic until later scholarship exposed this as inaccurate) is a direct result of the church fathers trying to remove all "taint" of Judaism from their new religion. So first it was "they all spoke Koine Greek" like it was some higher form of Greek. But this was found to be false as it was actually the lowest form of "pure" Greek (as if there is such a thing) and is most often used for translations from different languages into Greek. Then it was "well, actually they all spoke Aramaic," which most people do not realize is very similar to Hebrew. But it is not Hebrew, therefore it was not taught nor was it common to all regions of Roman rule. Then it was all these bastardizations. As for the Church Fathers' idea of what Jesus and the apostles spoke, what sticks in my head is that the NT has Jesus speaking in words that scholars identify as Aramaic like "Talitha Kum!" (Little girl arise!), and that Bishop Papias of Hieropolis in the early 2nd century claimed that Matthew initially wrote Jesus' sayings in "the Hebrew dialect/tongue". Then this claim got repeated by a few generations of Church fathers. Next, modern scholars interpreted this "Hebrew" label as being a gloss on Aramaic, whereby the Hebrews were speaking a Hebrew dialect of Aramaic, like how Mishnaic Hebrew might be called an Aramaic dialect of Hebrew. If some Church fathers claimed that the apostles spoke Greek, then I would take that claim to mean that the apostles spoke Greek in addition to their normal Semitic speech. The Jews on the other hand, while even before the 1st century BCE they have been split into sects, all have a common heritage, history, and "canon." Their canon is . The rest is just their reading list. The 'church' threw out and tried to make the NT say what they want, then make the rest of scripture match that. It's often said that the rabbis' "canon" is the TaNaKh. The rabbis' Council of Jamnia in about 70 AD may have ratified the TaNaKh as their canon. I have heard different claims about that. The Karaites and Sadducees apparently do consider the their only "canon", although a woman online questioned me to show that the Sadducees only accepted as canon. The common 'Church' or patristic idea seems to be, to simplify, that 's ritual and penal demands are fulfilled or outdated (Hebrews 8:13 about the Old Covenant being ready to pass away), citing, but that the theological and moral aspects of remain in force. I am trying to think of a possible illustration of avoiding the 's penal regulations is that the seems to impose. One that comes to mind is Trial by Poison for suspected adulterous wives (Numbers 5:11-31). However, the NT idea seems to be that even when the Second Temple was still standing, this imposition would not have to be imposed because of the importance of NT mercy. However, thinking through this issue critically, I suppose that even in the "pre-Christian" period before Yeshua's advent, one could still within the bounds of advocate for a path of mercy in avoiding the practical imposition of Numbers 5:11-31. So I'm not sure how good an example this is of how the NT has a changed approach to the 's punishment system. Rabbis have debates in Talmud, so it's not surprising that Paul and James would also have debates on topics like law, works, faith, and the relation between them. Personally I prefer to be open minded and reserve judgment if we are talking about Paul's take on vs. James'. Luther and Protestantism seem to me to make a pretty sharper version of Paul's "take" than I am comfortable with. But in the English-speaking world, we are typically bombarded mostly with Protestant versions of Christianity, and both you and I came from Protestant backgrounds. A 'tongue' meant an understandable language. And they had to know in advance there was an interpreter present; one who could translate from the Hebrew into the 'tongue' spoken by another. You cannot count on that if you just babble. I have seen this happen in Pentecostal churches more than once.
I take it that you mean that at Pentecostal churches, you have seen babbling happen, and that the Pentecostal church interpreter was not able to make a translation. It's nice writing with you. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 16, 2022 9:51:17 GMT -8
It is the infinite word of God. There can be many meanings; many lessons. We must just make sure they do not contradict any earlier scripture, especially Torah. If there is a problem, find out why before throwing it out. Furthermore, always be open to revisiting as you learn more, which can sometimes shed surprising light on the problem. Just wash it all down with bucketloads of discernment!
As for the Church Fathers' idea of what Jesus and the apostles spoke, what sticks in my head is that the NT has Jesus speaking in words that scholars identify as Aramaic like "Talitha Kum!" (Little girl arise!), and that Bishop Papias of Hieropolis in the early 2nd century claimed that Matthew initially wrote Jesus' sayings in "the Hebrew dialect/tongue". Then this claim got repeated by a few generations of Church fathers. Next, modern scholars interpreted this "Hebrew" label as being a gloss on Aramaic, whereby the Hebrews were speaking a Hebrew dialect of Aramaic, like how Mishnaic Hebrew might be called an Aramaic dialect of Hebrew.
Here we have a few problems. First off, we tend to speak as though the generalization is an absolute. It streamlines the process. But we must bear in mind not all church fathers believed the same. Also I speak of the early fathers, not the later Eastern or Protestant fathers who, while still holding to many of the catholic ideas had their own take vs. that of the RC Church. Then we each have our own take on church history, which will color what we perceive the other to be saying. LOL, for all that, we still do a fair job of communicating!
One change was that the Sanhedrin could not under Roman law impose capitol punishment. That was the purview of the Roman courts. As to the church's views on "fulfilled," see: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3566/matthew-5-17-18
I give an explanation of one fallacy of church teaching on that term. Yes, they debated. But on this point they agreed. New Gentile believers attended synagogue on Shabbat, where they were given continuing scriptural instruction. Those 4 things of the Jerusalem Council were just a beginning point.
Luther too was "just a beginning" in my view. No one really asked the obvious, "If these be wrong, could there be other errors as well?" Much of the catholic doctrine was (and is) still just accepted, while the Prods were content to just argue and modify Luther's points. I have said before that Luther is the Protestant Mishnah, and the denominational views are their Gemara.
A 'tongue' meant an understandable language. And they had to know in advance there was an interpreter present; one who could translate from the Hebrew into the 'tongue' spoken by another. You cannot count on that if you just babble. I have seen this happen in Pentecostal churches more than once. I take it that you mean that at Pentecostal churches, you have seen babbling happen, and that the Pentecostal church interpreter was not able to make a translation. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on May 17, 2022 7:04:17 GMT -8
Luther too was "just a beginning" in my view. No one really asked the obvious, "If these be wrong, could there be other errors as well?" Much of the catholic doctrine was (and is) still just accepted, while the Prods were content to just argue and modify Luther's points. I have said before that Luther is the Protestant Mishnah, and the denominational views are their Gemara.
I replied to you here to help stay on topic: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4339/happy-reformation-day?page=1&scrollTo=27301 |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
).
) I should start it up again, but honestly there are more important things to do with my limited time. Drat, and I really wanted to impress everyone by interjecting kewl Hebraic turns of speech ... 
or reading the parashah 
, we may be able to learn more this way than by looking for the one great and true translation. 
