Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer
This may come as a surprise but before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine.

Well I hate to burst your Aramaic bubble but they spoke Hebrew quite well in the Jewish communities of that era, particularly around Jerusalem. When Paul spoke to the crowd in Jerusalem, he did so in the language that they understood:

"Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue ... And when they heard that he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept more quiet." [Acts 21:38-40, 22:2]

Furthermore the inscription on the cross testifies against the Aramaic myth because the "superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." [Luke 23:38]

If no one knew Hebrew or spoke Hebrew, then why would they inscribe the cross in Hebrew? And where is the Aramaic inscription??? It wasn't inscribed in Aramaic because the Jews didn't speak Aramaic there. They spoke Hebrew.

to this day, Aramaic - the language of Jesus - is retained for the Institution Narrative. It is as close as one comes to the Last Supper.

Sorry but the language of Jesus was Hebrew and He even spoke it from heaven, as Paul recalls his Damascus Road Conversion:

"I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul ..." [Acts 26:14]

The word "Aramaic" does not even appear in the New Testament.

124 posted on 08/19/2007 6:01:48 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip

And in what language did Jesus make His last pronouncement, that ‘It is finished’? He spoke it in the language of the marketplace, in Aramaic. Incidentally, Aramaic and spoken Hebrew are close to each other and were written in similar ways for more than a century with Aramaic still retaining some of the same Hebrew letters and syntax, if old memory serves.


125 posted on 08/19/2007 6:13:26 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Chip
That's what I was going to say! Good post!

You know....they have to convince the world that Aramaic was the preferred dialect in order to justify their silly notion that [Matthew 16:18] somehow gives them the right to dictate doctrine......on going.

From the scriptures you have provided this idea is completely debunked.

126 posted on 08/19/2007 6:18:31 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Chip
The word "Aramaic" does not even appear in the New Testament.

The language does.

"Eli, eli, lama sabacthani" is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic.

"Talitha koum" is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic.

"Ephphatha" is not Hebrew. It's Aramaic.

Josephus and other secular sources agree that the common language of the Jews at that time (among themselves) was Aramaic, not Hebrew. Hebrew was reserved for the synagogue, for prayer and Torah study.

As far as references to the "Hebrew language," that might refer to the language Hebrew, or it might refer to the common language of the Hebrews, Aramaic. Without being there, it's hard to know for sure.

A portion of the titulus on the Cross still exists. Unfortunately it contains only Latin and Greek letters; the Hebrew or Aramaic portion has been lost.

What we know for sure is that at least one of the languages Jesus spoke was Aramaic. It's in the Bible.

128 posted on 08/19/2007 6:32:11 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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