Hope Beyond Hell?

[Remedialist]

Rick,

I do not know whether or not ... and to what degree ... rodger tutt may have disobeyed the rules, but,

You have sixteen (16) posts in this thread. Many of them are long. Yet you deleted ALLof Rodger's threads. Seems a bit lopsided, no? In case my posts here meet a similar fate of mass extermination by the blog-owner, let it be known the gist of my posts here will also be carried at my blog, http://remedialist.blogspot.com/ .

[Remedialist]

Originally Posted by Rick

Forever and Ever

Is the English phrase "forever and ever" a proper translation
of the Greek? Does it mean without end? Is it ever used of
something not eternal? Does it refer to eternal torment? These
questions are important because the universalist position denies the
eternality of hell fire. Universalists take the literal Greek phrase
of "eis tous aionas ton aionon, -- into the age of the ages" which is
commonly translated as "forever and ever," "forevermore," and state
that it refers to an age of time, a finite period of time.
It is true that the basic root of "aion" means age. But it is
not true that all words derived from that root mean a finite duration
of time. The phrase means "unlimited duration of time, with
particular focus upon the future - `always, forever, forever and
ever , eternally."'1
Additionally, the phrase is used to describe both God's eternal
attributes and His eternal nature as well as eternal torment.
Following is a table containing every single usage of the Greek
phrase "eis tous aionas ton aionon -- into the age of the ages." It
clearly shows that it means "forever," "without end." The first two
verses deal with eternal condemnation and judgment. The next 16 deal
with God's Glory and honor.


"into the age of the ages"
Translated as "forever and ever"; "forevermore"


"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever
and ever," (Rev. 19:3).
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they
will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).

"to whom be the glory forevermore, Amen" (Gal. 1:2)
"Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen,"
(Phil. 4:20)
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor
and glory forever and ever. Amen," (1 Tim. 1:17).
"The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me
safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever.
Amen," (2 Tim. 4:18).
"equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that
which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the
glory forever and ever. Amen," (Heb. 13:21).
"Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God;
whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies;
so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to
whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen," (1 Pet.
4:11).
"and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father;
to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen," (Rev.
1:6).
"and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive
forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:18).
"And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him
who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever," (Rev.
4:9).
"the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the
throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will
cast their crowns before the throne," (Rev. 4:10).
"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and
under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard
saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing
and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever," (Rev. 5:13).
"Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and
power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen," (Rev. 7:12).
"and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and
the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and
the things in it, that there shall be delay no longer," (Rev. 10:6).
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in
heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of
our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever,'"
(Rev. 11:15).
"And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven
golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever,"
(Rev. 15:7).
"And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need
of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God
shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever," (Rev.
22:5).


Clearly, the phrase "forever and ever" is a correct translation
of the Greek ""eis tous aionas ton aionon -- forever and ever" Every
instance of the phrase shows eternality.
But, a word of caution. The Universalist may say that Rev. 19.3
is not eternal because it is the description of smoke from the City
of Babylon. But, the judgment that is cast upon her is only the
beginning of the eternal punishment of the wicked, indicated in the
statement that the smoke from her goes up forever and ever.
The phrase is always speaking of eternal duration.
Universalism is incorrect because not all will be saved because:

"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they
will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).

Rick posted the above quote. My initial response to this concept is already on a post at Hope Beyond Hell?

Here, as another beginning at responding to this question of the real meaning of "aion" and "olam", may I submit a cut-and-paste of a single page (page #22) from Hope Beyond Hell by Gary B. which is freely available at http://hopebeyondhell.net/Revised_Edition.pdf

In the Septuagint the Greek word, aion, is used to translate the Hebrew word olam. Thus, if we want to get a sense of the New Testament meaning of aion, we need to understand the meaning of olam in the Old Testament. Numerous passages referring to olamshow clearly it cannot mean "never-ending." Note these few:
» Jonah was in the fish forever [olam] untilhe left three days later (Jon. 1:17; 2:6).
» Sodom's fiery judgment is eternal [olam] untilGod returns them to their former state (Ez. 16:53-55; Ju. 7).
» A Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation for­ever [olam] until the 10th generation (De. 23:3).
» Hills are everlasting [olam] untilmade low...earth is burned up (Ge. 49:26; De. 33:15; Is. 40:4; 2Pe. 3:10).
» Mountains are everlasting [olam] untilthey are scattered (Hab. 3:6).
» A slave serves his master forever [olam] until death ends his servitude (Ex. 21:6).
» The Mosaic covenant is everlasting [olam] until it vanishes away (Le. 24:8; He. 8:7-13).
» The Aaronic priesthood is everlasting [olam] untilthe likeness of Melchizedek arises (Ex. 40:15; Nu. 25:13; He. 7:14-22).
» These "stones" are to be a memorial forever until (Jos. 4:7)? Where are they now?
» The leprosy of Naaman shall cling forever [olam] untilhis death, of course (2K. 5:27).
» God dwells in Solomon's temple forever [olam] untilit is destroyed (2Ch. 7:16; 1K 8:13; 9:3).
» Animal sacrifices were to be offered forever [olam] untilended by the work of Christ (2Ch. 2:4; He. 7:11-10:18).
» Circumcision was an everlasting [olam] covenant untilthe new covenant (Ge. 17:9-13; 1Co. 7:19; Ga. 5:6).
» Israel's judgment lasts forever [olam] untilthe Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Is. 32:13-15).
» I will make you an eternal [olam] excellence untilmany generations (Is. 60:15).

[Remedialist]

ANOTHER THING CONCERNING THE IDEA OF "ETERNITY"

Hello to readers. In a nearby post above, I have begun a reply to Rick on the subject of the translation of the Greek AION (Strong's Greek word G165 165, and see G166) and the Hebrew OLAM (Strongs H5769 ... 5769).

On that subject, I would like to rhetorically ask the question, "Why should we expect to experience 'eternity' in heaven ... since heaven is part of the creation of God which shall pass away?"

As we know from Scripture, heaven and earth are created places and they shall pass away. The Genesis account describes God creating the heavens and earth ... as well as all that is in them ... over the course of time.

Should we not then expect to experience time in heaven? And, if we experience time, are we experiencing "eternity"? If heaven shall pass away, how can it be said, when heaven has passed away, that we experienced eternity during the duration of our life in heaven?

Instead of "eternity", I think we should look forward to experiencing PROGRESS and EFFORT over TIME in HEAVEN (as well as on earth during the Kingdom ages yet to unfold upon the earth.)

Timotheus Wood of remedialist.blogger.com

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Remedialist

Rick,

I do not know whether or not ... and to what degree ... rodger tutt may have disobeyed the rules, but,

You have sixteen (16) posts in this thread. Many of them are long. Yet you deleted ALLof Rodger's threads. Seems a bit lopsided, no? In case my posts here meet a similar fate of mass extermination by the blog-owner, let it be known the gist of my posts here will also be carried at my blog, http://remedialist.blogspot.com/ .

Rodger had a problem with posting spam and repeated cut and past messages. He also refused to stop doing it.

That is why his posts were deleted. At first I just deleted his spam one message at a time. His response was just to put the spam back up on the site.

After repeated infractions his posts were deleted and he is suspended for ten days from the site.

When you sign up as a member you agree to follow the rules for the site. When you spam you break your agreement with us. Links to other sites are supposed to recieve prior approval from an administrater before they are posted.

Anytime a member posts an unapproved link they take a risk of having their posts deleted and their membership suspended.

I don`t think breaking your agreement with our site and posting spam is a good testimony to ones faith. Do you?

[Remedialist]

Sorry I griped about it. I just didn't see the actual evidence of spam or repeat posts of cut-and-paste ... but I guess it is true. I apologise in advance for R.T.; I would expect him to apologise if he did all that.

[fykusfire]

Here is the major glaring problem with all you originally posted. You are under a false assumption, as many people are, that the Bible was written in Greek. It was created by Hebrews, who spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic. You also leave out the very important issue of who chose that translation, and the canon of scripture for that matter. There are just as many books in the Nag Hammadi Library for instance that contradict what you said, and those were considered just as much gospel to the early Coptics and Messianics as the established Bible is to Jews and Christians today. That is important because the Messianics and Coptics were the originators of your faith. If you want to segregate yourself from others who are non-believers over what could very well just have been piss-poor human interpretation, so be it.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by fykusfire

Here is the major glaring problem with all you originally posted. You are under a false assumption, as many people are, that the Bible was written in Greek. It was created by Hebrews, who spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic. You also leave out the very important issue of who chose that translation, and the canon of scripture for that matter. There are just as many books in the Nag Hammadi Library for instance that contradict what you said, and those were considered just as much gospel to the early Coptics and Messianics as the established Bible is to Jews and Christians today. That is important because the Messianics and Coptics were the originators of your faith. If you want to segregate yourself from others who are non-believers over what could very well just have been piss-poor human interpretation, so be it.

The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek. Most people know that.

There is a good chance that the four gospels, Acts, James, and Hebrews originated in Aramic. The letters of Paul along with other New Testament writings addressed to the Gentile church were written in Greek.

Understandable since most of the persons being written to didn`t speak Aramic.

It`s all irrelevant though. New Testament writings were circulated in both languages early on. The Aramic versions were written for the Jewish groups, the Greek for the Gentile groups established by Paul.

I`ve done a little research on the Aramic translations. I`ve read some of it though not nearly as much as I would like to. Near as I have been able to determine there is very little difference between the two.

Of course I also understand that there is a big rush by Hebrew Roots cultist to create their own perverted, erroneous translations of the Aramaic text.

Fortunately the body of Christ has some true scholars who have created an honest translation of those texts.

[fykusfire]

Hebrew/Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Textual analysis and scholarship supporting

an original Hebrew New Testament

The Remnant of YHWH accepts both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and generally follow the King James translation because many reference works are based upon that version. We do not accept, however, the substituted names and common titles of our heavenly Father and His Son. We also object to the Hellenized names give to the Hebrew worthies in the New Testament, such Hezekiah appearing as "Ezekias" (Mat. 1:9), and Judah (Yahudah) as "Judas" (Mat. 1:2).
Beyond just names, churchianity itself is tained with Greek thinking, Hellenized creeds, and unscriptural practices derived from Greco-Roman infusions through a Greek-translated New Testament. Scholarship is increasingly validating the case for a Hebrew original New Testament. We include some of their documentation in this short study.
Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the New Testament was inspired in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then later translated into Greek. The testimony to this is voluminous and logical. One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Hebrews, and "while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew" (Companion Bible, appendix 94).
Beginning on page 7 is a list of scholars and their treatises supporting an original Hebrew New Testament. This list is by no means comprehensive. Other enlightened experts have come to the same realization that the New Testament was originally a collection of Hebrew works. The Bible's Hebrew writers were led by the YHWH’s Spirit to write in their native Hebrew language, just as Shaul (Shaul) was spoken to in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14.
New Testament Founded on “Old Testament”
The inquiring Bible student soon realizes that the New Testament is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and thinking. This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the new Testament believer. If the New Testament is rooted in the Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture and are embedded in the Hebrew - and not pagan Greek - view of truth.
Those who would object to this reality must be asked the question, does arguing for a Greek New Testament bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from it, knowing that the Old Testament is a thoroughly Hebrew work? Is the New Testament a complete replacement of Old Testament teachings, with entirely new truth flavored with Hellenistic thought, practice, and understanding?
Not according to the Apostle Shaul. He wrote that the New Testament is built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets as well as the apostles, Ephesians 2:20. Yahsha the Messiah gave the directive to "search the Scriptures," John 5:39. The only "scriptures" extant at that time were those of the Old Testament. The New Testament writings were not yet finished and compiled.
In His parable of Lazarus, Yahsha again advised the unknowing to listen to "Moses and the prophets," meaning the Old Testament, Luke 16:29. It was these same Old Testament Scriptures that the "noble Bereans" used to establish truth in Acts 17:11, and the very ones Shaul told Timothy would make one perfect, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Aside from approaching truth from the right scriptural foundation, there is another important reason for coming to grips with the original language of the New Testament.
One of the arguments advanced against the verity of the sacred Names is that the Names would appear as "God" (Theos) and "Jesus" in the New Testament Greek text. The logic goes, if such titles and names are in the "original" text, then who are we to change them to something else?
Apart from this argument's erroneous premise ("God" is not the same word as the Greek Theos: "Jesus" is only partly a Greek term), we must ask, is it legitimate to change someone's name simply because you are writing about him in some other language? Names are transliterated, not translated.
I f a book about the president of the United States were written in or translated into Russian, would the author or translators look for a Russian equivalent name for "Bill Clinton"? Of course not. His name would still appear as Bill Clinton.
By the same token, the Father's and Son's Names are the same in every language. Therefore we must call on them by their names revealed through the Hebrew tongue. There is no more a Russian equivalent name for "Bill Clinton" than there is a Greek or English equivalent of the Hebrew "Yahweh" and "Yahsha.".
"God", "Lord", and "Jesus" are not equivalents, they are replacements – frauds!
Hebrew Words Out of Place?
A peculiar discrepancy within the New Testament is this: if the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, why does it contain many untranslated Hebrew words? Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Hebrew terms in their Greek writings?
The only valid explanation is that the Greek language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Hebrew terms taken from an original Hebrew text and translated into Greek.
These Hebrew survivals attest to a Hebrew original - and a Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the Hebrew.
The following HEBREW words are included in the King James New Testament, as taken from the Greek translation (some are Aramaic).
Abba ("dearest father"); Messiah ("Anointed one"); Rabbi ("my teacher"); hosanna ("Save! We beseech"); Amen (suggests trust, faithfulness); talitha cumi ("maid arise"); ephphatha ("be opened"); corban ("a dedicated gift"); Sabbath ("repose", "desist" from exertion); Satan ("adversary"); mammon ("riches"); raca ("to spit in one's face"); cummin (herb); Maranatha ("Master, I pray you overthrow"); Passover ("pass over"); Emmanuel (title meaning "El with us"); Eli lama Sabachthani ("my El, why have you forsaken me?")
Even more compelling evidence for a New Testament originally composed in Hebrew is found in the clear Hebrew word order extant in the New Testament. Many sentences contain the verb-noun reversal common to Hebrew and Semitic languages.
Scholars also have long recognized that the grammar of the New Testament does not befit good Greek, but does reflect excellent Hebrew grammar.
In addition, many Hebraic idioms and expressions are scattered throughout the New Testament. Had the original been composed in Greek, these sayings would have been put into Greek form and expression.
For example, what did Yahsha and others mean by statements that don't make good sense in Greek (Or English) but are powerful in the Hebrew? Such expressions include: "If your eye is evil" (Matt. 6:23); "let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22); "for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry" (Luke 23:31), and "thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Shaul in Rom. 12:20).
Numerous examples of Semitic poetry and reverse couplets (chiasmus) are dead giveaways to the original Hebrew of these books. Hebrew is also distinct for its colorful descriptions of simple, common acts.
For example, a beautiful expression in classical Hebrew is found in Luke 16:23: "...he lift up his eyes...and saw..." Other sayings peculiar to Hebrew and found in the Evangels include: "Lay these sayings in your years," "Cast out your name as evil," "He set his face to go," and "The appearance of his countenance was altered."
Whole sentences or paragraphs in the New Testament can be retranslated word for word back into the Hebrew. Luke 10:5-6 is just one example: "And into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again." This passage is a synthesis of vivid Hebrew idioms unknown in the Greek.
Greek Unpopular in Palestine
Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included herein). Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36).
Hebrew was the language of Judah and Galilee in the first century. Its sister language, Aramaic, remained the secondary tongue and the language of commerce. Jews in this area were not Greek-speaking. Their revulsion to the Greeks and the Greek language derives from the fact that the Maccabees had just defeated the Greeks and driven them and their pagan defilement from the Temple and Palestine.
The eminent first century Jewish historian, priest, and scholar Josephus admitted that he could not speak Greek fluently and that the Jews frowned on any Jew who did.
"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations" (Antiquities, 20:11:2).
If this illustrious scholar was unable to speak Greek sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Greek? From what we've learned, why would they even want to do so?
A Hebrew Writing to Hebrews
The common perception is that Shaul was a Hellenist Jew from Tarsus who wrote his letters to Greek-speaking assemblies in Asia minor, Rome and Greece.
Shaul was first and foremost a Pharisee - a Jewish sect opposed to Hellenization. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and a "Hebrew of Hebrews," Philippians 3:5. A note in the NIV Study Bible says the expression "Hebrew of Hebrews" means "in language, attitudes and life-style."
Shaul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor of Hebrew law, Acts 22:3. Although he was born in Tarsus (a city speaking mainly Aramaic), Shaul grew up in Jerusalem, the center of Pharisaic Judaism, Acts 22:3.
The epistles Shaul wrote were to various assembliesof the Dispersion. Each assembly was composed of a nucleus group of Jews and supplementary collections of gentiles (read about the Thessalonia Assembly, Acts 17:1-4, as well as the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10:1-2). The converted Jews in these assemblies would receive Shaul's letters and then teach the gentiles among them. It wasn't the gentiles who were converting Jews to a Grecian-Roman faith with a Greek Savior and doctrines of mystery worship!
Typically Shaul went first to the synagogue when he traveled to contact these and other assemblies (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 17:10, 18:4, 19:8). The language of the second Temple and synagogues at this time was Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
His letters in Hebrew to these Jews (and gentiles) of the various assemblies would reflect his mission to take the message of the Kingdom of YHWH to "the Jew first and then to the Greek," Romans 1:16.
As an example, Shaul specifically addressed Jews of the Corinthian assembly: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2).
Truth from Greek or Hebrew?
Understanding basic truth is to know that Yahweh chose the Hebrew peoples with whom to make a Covenant and through whom to bring the truth.
How much of a gentile should the True Worshiper be who is bathing in Scriptures first delivered to Hebrew patriarchs, Hebrew prophets, Hebrew apostles and lived by a Savior from the human lineage of King David? Shaul was no champion of the gentile cause. He was the champion of a Hebrew Messiah and scriptures given in a Hebrew Old Testament. These were what he taught in his epistles. Note:
"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the YHWH of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). "Law and prophets" refers to the Old Testament Scriptures.
Which culture, world-view, and mentality should prevail among True Worshipers today? A Greek-gentile heritage? Or the birthright of those grafted into the promised of Israel established by the Heavenly Father Yahweh Himself?
Shaul wrote to the assembly at Rome, "Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of YHWH, and the promises" (Romans 9:4).
If Christianity were honest with itself, it would openly acknowledge that it derives its faith from Hebrew and not Greco-Roman Scriptures. That its salvation comes from a Savior who came as a Hebrew not to establish a new religion but to build on what went before. Yahsha and the Scriptures are Hebrew.
This one pivotal truth is being taught today, and real understanding of the Scriptures is breaking out everywhere! The true Hebrew Covenant of YHWH – everlasting life through His Hebrew named Son Yahsha ha’Meshiyakh is at last being revealed.

“And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” – Dan. 12:9-10

The Remnant of YHWH has been given an open door. Step through it with us!

Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original New Testament

Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.
D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.
E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.
Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.
Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.
Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.
Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.
Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.
Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.
Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.
Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.
Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.
Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.
Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.
R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.
Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.
Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.
F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.

“...only a Remnant will be saved.” Romans 9:27

The Remnant of YHWH
PO BOX 2453
Abilene, Texas 79604

Email: wlldn613@yahoo.com

[Rick]

Originally Posted by fykusfire

Hebrew/Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Textual analysis and scholarship supporting

an original Hebrew New Testament

The Remnant of YHWH accepts both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and generally follow the King James translation because many reference works are based upon that version. We do not accept, however, the substituted names and common titles of our heavenly Father and His Son. We also object to the Hellenized names give to the Hebrew worthies in the New Testament, such Hezekiah appearing as "Ezekias" (Mat. 1:9), and Judah (Yahudah) as "Judas" (Mat. 1:2).
Beyond just names, churchianity itself is tained with Greek thinking, Hellenized creeds, and unscriptural practices derived from Greco-Roman infusions through a Greek-translated New Testament. Scholarship is increasingly validating the case for a Hebrew original New Testament. We include some of their documentation in this short study.
Examining all the evidence, we conclude that the New Testament was inspired in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then later translated into Greek. The testimony to this is voluminous and logical. One needs only to consider that the writers were themselves Hebrews, and "while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew" (Companion Bible, appendix 94).
Beginning on page 7 is a list of scholars and their treatises supporting an original Hebrew New Testament. This list is by no means comprehensive. Other enlightened experts have come to the same realization that the New Testament was originally a collection of Hebrew works. The Bible's Hebrew writers were led by the YHWH’s Spirit to write in their native Hebrew language, just as Shaul (Shaul) was spoken to in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14.
New Testament Founded on “Old Testament”
The inquiring Bible student soon realizes that the New Testament is undeniably Hebrew in grammar, idiom, and thinking. This opens up a whole new understanding of the essence of truth for the new Testament believer. If the New Testament is rooted in the Hebrew Language, then its teachings also derive from the Hebrew culture and are embedded in the Hebrew - and not pagan Greek - view of truth.
Those who would object to this reality must be asked the question, does arguing for a Greek New Testament bring one closer to the truth, or take one further from it, knowing that the Old Testament is a thoroughly Hebrew work? Is the New Testament a complete replacement of Old Testament teachings, with entirely new truth flavored with Hellenistic thought, practice, and understanding?
Not according to the Apostle Shaul. He wrote that the New Testament is built on the foundation of the Old Testament prophets as well as the apostles, Ephesians 2:20. Yahsha the Messiah gave the directive to "search the Scriptures," John 5:39. The only "scriptures" extant at that time were those of the Old Testament. The New Testament writings were not yet finished and compiled.
In His parable of Lazarus, Yahsha again advised the unknowing to listen to "Moses and the prophets," meaning the Old Testament, Luke 16:29. It was these same Old Testament Scriptures that the "noble Bereans" used to establish truth in Acts 17:11, and the very ones Shaul told Timothy would make one perfect, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Aside from approaching truth from the right scriptural foundation, there is another important reason for coming to grips with the original language of the New Testament.
One of the arguments advanced against the verity of the sacred Names is that the Names would appear as "God" (Theos) and "Jesus" in the New Testament Greek text. The logic goes, if such titles and names are in the "original" text, then who are we to change them to something else?
Apart from this argument's erroneous premise ("God" is not the same word as the Greek Theos: "Jesus" is only partly a Greek term), we must ask, is it legitimate to change someone's name simply because you are writing about him in some other language? Names are transliterated, not translated.
I f a book about the president of the United States were written in or translated into Russian, would the author or translators look for a Russian equivalent name for "Bill Clinton"? Of course not. His name would still appear as Bill Clinton.
By the same token, the Father's and Son's Names are the same in every language. Therefore we must call on them by their names revealed through the Hebrew tongue. There is no more a Russian equivalent name for "Bill Clinton" than there is a Greek or English equivalent of the Hebrew "Yahweh" and "Yahsha.".
"God", "Lord", and "Jesus" are not equivalents, they are replacements – frauds!
Hebrew Words Out of Place?
A peculiar discrepancy within the New Testament is this: if the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, why does it contain many untranslated Hebrew words? Why did the writers go to all the trouble of preserving Hebrew terms in their Greek writings?
The only valid explanation is that the Greek language had no equivalent words for these uniquely Hebrew terms taken from an original Hebrew text and translated into Greek.
These Hebrew survivals attest to a Hebrew original - and a Greek (and English) translation that brought them across unchanged from the Hebrew.
The following HEBREW words are included in the King James New Testament, as taken from the Greek translation (some are Aramaic).
Abba ("dearest father"); Messiah ("Anointed one"); Rabbi ("my teacher"); hosanna ("Save! We beseech"); Amen (suggests trust, faithfulness); talitha cumi ("maid arise"); ephphatha ("be opened"); corban ("a dedicated gift"); Sabbath ("repose", "desist" from exertion); Satan ("adversary"); mammon ("riches"); raca ("to spit in one's face"); cummin (herb); Maranatha ("Master, I pray you overthrow"); Passover ("pass over"); Emmanuel (title meaning "El with us"); Eli lama Sabachthani ("my El, why have you forsaken me?")
Even more compelling evidence for a New Testament originally composed in Hebrew is found in the clear Hebrew word order extant in the New Testament. Many sentences contain the verb-noun reversal common to Hebrew and Semitic languages.
Scholars also have long recognized that the grammar of the New Testament does not befit good Greek, but does reflect excellent Hebrew grammar.
In addition, many Hebraic idioms and expressions are scattered throughout the New Testament. Had the original been composed in Greek, these sayings would have been put into Greek form and expression.
For example, what did Yahsha and others mean by statements that don't make good sense in Greek (Or English) but are powerful in the Hebrew? Such expressions include: "If your eye is evil" (Matt. 6:23); "let the dead bury the dead" (Matt. 8:22); "for if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry" (Luke 23:31), and "thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head" (Shaul in Rom. 12:20).
Numerous examples of Semitic poetry and reverse couplets (chiasmus) are dead giveaways to the original Hebrew of these books. Hebrew is also distinct for its colorful descriptions of simple, common acts.
For example, a beautiful expression in classical Hebrew is found in Luke 16:23: "...he lift up his eyes...and saw..." Other sayings peculiar to Hebrew and found in the Evangels include: "Lay these sayings in your years," "Cast out your name as evil," "He set his face to go," and "The appearance of his countenance was altered."
Whole sentences or paragraphs in the New Testament can be retranslated word for word back into the Hebrew. Luke 10:5-6 is just one example: "And into whatsoever house you enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again." This passage is a synthesis of vivid Hebrew idioms unknown in the Greek.
Greek Unpopular in Palestine
Many linguists and historians now attest that the Evangels, the Acts, and the Book of Revelation were composed in Hebrew (see listing of these scholars included herein). Early "church fathers" validate that the Book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (see Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:39; Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3:1; Epiphanius' Panarion 20:9:4; Jerome's Lives of Illustrious Men 3 and De Vir. 3:36).
Hebrew was the language of Judah and Galilee in the first century. Its sister language, Aramaic, remained the secondary tongue and the language of commerce. Jews in this area were not Greek-speaking. Their revulsion to the Greeks and the Greek language derives from the fact that the Maccabees had just defeated the Greeks and driven them and their pagan defilement from the Temple and Palestine.
The eminent first century Jewish historian, priest, and scholar Josephus admitted that he could not speak Greek fluently and that the Jews frowned on any Jew who did.
"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understanding the elements of the Greek language although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own language, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness: for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations" (Antiquities, 20:11:2).
If this illustrious scholar was unable to speak Greek sufficiently, how could the uneducated disciples write their books in Greek? From what we've learned, why would they even want to do so?
A Hebrew Writing to Hebrews
The common perception is that Shaul was a Hellenist Jew from Tarsus who wrote his letters to Greek-speaking assemblies in Asia minor, Rome and Greece.
Shaul was first and foremost a Pharisee - a Jewish sect opposed to Hellenization. He was of the tribe of Benjamin and a "Hebrew of Hebrews," Philippians 3:5. A note in the NIV Study Bible says the expression "Hebrew of Hebrews" means "in language, attitudes and life-style."
Shaul was educated at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor of Hebrew law, Acts 22:3. Although he was born in Tarsus (a city speaking mainly Aramaic), Shaul grew up in Jerusalem, the center of Pharisaic Judaism, Acts 22:3.
The epistles Shaul wrote were to various assembliesof the Dispersion. Each assembly was composed of a nucleus group of Jews and supplementary collections of gentiles (read about the Thessalonia Assembly, Acts 17:1-4, as well as the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10:1-2). The converted Jews in these assemblies would receive Shaul's letters and then teach the gentiles among them. It wasn't the gentiles who were converting Jews to a Grecian-Roman faith with a Greek Savior and doctrines of mystery worship!
Typically Shaul went first to the synagogue when he traveled to contact these and other assemblies (Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 17:10, 18:4, 19:8). The language of the second Temple and synagogues at this time was Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek.
His letters in Hebrew to these Jews (and gentiles) of the various assemblies would reflect his mission to take the message of the Kingdom of YHWH to "the Jew first and then to the Greek," Romans 1:16.
As an example, Shaul specifically addressed Jews of the Corinthian assembly: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:1-2).
Truth from Greek or Hebrew?
Understanding basic truth is to know that Yahweh chose the Hebrew peoples with whom to make a Covenant and through whom to bring the truth.
How much of a gentile should the True Worshiper be who is bathing in Scriptures first delivered to Hebrew patriarchs, Hebrew prophets, Hebrew apostles and lived by a Savior from the human lineage of King David? Shaul was no champion of the gentile cause. He was the champion of a Hebrew Messiah and scriptures given in a Hebrew Old Testament. These were what he taught in his epistles. Note:
"But this I confess unto you, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the YHWH of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14). "Law and prophets" refers to the Old Testament Scriptures.
Which culture, world-view, and mentality should prevail among True Worshipers today? A Greek-gentile heritage? Or the birthright of those grafted into the promised of Israel established by the Heavenly Father Yahweh Himself?
Shaul wrote to the assembly at Rome, "Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of YHWH, and the promises" (Romans 9:4).
If Christianity were honest with itself, it would openly acknowledge that it derives its faith from Hebrew and not Greco-Roman Scriptures. That its salvation comes from a Savior who came as a Hebrew not to establish a new religion but to build on what went before. Yahsha and the Scriptures are Hebrew.
This one pivotal truth is being taught today, and real understanding of the Scriptures is breaking out everywhere! The true Hebrew Covenant of YHWH – everlasting life through His Hebrew named Son Yahsha ha’Meshiyakh is at last being revealed.

“And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.” – Dan. 12:9-10

The Remnant of YHWH has been given an open door. Step through it with us!

Scholars Who Support A Hebrew Original New Testament

Following is a listing of some linguistic and Biblical authorities who maintain or support a belief in a Hebrew origin of the New Testament:
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition, entirety.
D. Bivin and R. B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, entirety.
E. W. Bullinger, The Companion Bible, Appendix 95.
Dr. F. C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, pp. 25, 29.
Prof. C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, entirety.
Epiphanius, Panarion 29:9:4 on Matthew.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III 24:6 and 39:18; V8:2; VI 25:4.
Edward Gibbon, History of Christianity, two footnotes on p. 185.
Dr. Frederick C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, p. 14.
Dr. George Howard, The Tetragram and the New Testament in Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 96/1 (1977), 63-83. Also, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, entirety.
Dr. George Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Introduction, pp. IX-XII.
Dr. Alfred F. Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion and the Origin of the New Testament, pp. 66, 68.
Dr. Isaac Rabinowitz, Ephphata...in Journal of Semitic Studies vol. XVI (1971), pp. 151-156.
Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus, pp. 90, 92.
Hugh J. Schonfield, An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel, (1927) p. 7.
Dr. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 275.
R. B. Y. Scott, The Original Language of the Apocalypse, entirety.
Prof. Charles C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church, entirety. Also, Our Translated Gospels, entirety.
Dr. James Scott Trimm, The semitic Origin of the New Testament, entirety.
Max Wiolcox, The Semitism of Acts (1965), entirety.
F. Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels, entirety.

“...only a Remnant will be saved.” Romans 9:27

The Remnant of YHWH

PO BOX 2453
Abilene, Texas 79604

Email: wlldn613@yahoo.com

I haven`t replied to this post yet because I want to give it a proper response and I haven`t had the time to do so. It doesn`t belong on this thread so when I get around to it this post and it`s replies will be moved to a new Hebrew Roots thread.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Remedialist

ANOTHER THING CONCERNING THE IDEA OF "ETERNITY"

Hello to readers. In a nearby post above, I have begun a reply to Rick on the subject of the translation of the Greek AION (Strong's Greek word G165 165, and see G166) and the Hebrew OLAM (Strongs H5769 ... 5769).

On that subject, I would like to rhetorically ask the question, "Why should we expect to experience 'eternity' in heaven ... since heaven is part of the creation of God which shall pass away?"

As we know from Scripture, heaven and earth are created places and they shall pass away. The Genesis account describes God creating the heavens and earth ... as well as all that is in them ... over the course of time.

Should we not then expect to experience time in heaven? And, if we experience time, are we experiencing "eternity"? If heaven shall pass away, how can it be said, when heaven has passed away, that we experienced eternity during the duration of our life in heaven?

Instead of "eternity", I think we should look forward to experiencing PROGRESS and EFFORT over TIME in HEAVEN (as well as on earth during the Kingdom ages yet to unfold upon the earth.)

Timotheus Wood of remedialist.blogger.com

Likewise Tim,

I haven`t had time to respond to your posts yet. I`ve been really busy lately but when I have time to give it my full attention I will reply to all of your posts. If you have anything else to add to this thread feel free to do so.

I have some interest in Universalist arguments. But I need someone who is sane and rationale to discuss them with. Willie and Rodger burned their bridges faster then I could build them.