Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Havoc
He may have spoken Aramaic. But we have a Greek text, not an aramaic text.

Which rather compliates the claims of those who resort to literal interpretation of the Text. That means we have no words that Jesus actually spoke?

109 posted on 09/29/2001 1:07:08 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]


To: RobbyS, Conservative..
Which rather compliates the claims of those who resort to literal interpretation of the Text. That means we have no words that Jesus actually spoke?

No, it doesn't. I didn't say Jesus spoke Aramaic. I said he may have (a maybe). The original texts *may* have been written in aramaic - doesn't mean Jesus was speaking aramaic. As I pointed out before, Jesus was a Carpenter - skilled in a trade and Greek was a common trade language. It does not stretch the bounds of possibility to consider that he could speak Greek. But this is considered on the basis that he was a mere mortal. He was the son of God. I'm certain that had he decided to speak Erdu or Hindi, he could have. Oops, another issue that just completely blows your whole theory out of the water.

112 posted on 09/29/2001 1:42:59 PM PDT by Havoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson