Does Jesus speak Greek?

[JoeyKnothead]

I've heard it on more'n one occassion that English language bibles are faulty, 'cause they ain't written in the "original" Greek.

Which leads me to ask for debate:


Did Jesus speak Greek?

If English translations of Greek are faulty, ain't Greek translations of Jesus' Aramaic faulty?

If a translation is faulty, should it be relied upon to make life impacting decisions?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 49 by 4insight]

Yes, my friend, I am talking about sounds not letters. So if you read my post over again, I'm sure you'll agree.

Written phonetically Jesus is Hey Zeus, or Jay Zeus, both mean "Hail Zeus."

Jove, when PRONOUNCED in Latin, is pronounced with the e enunciated. Let's try it together, in Latin.

J -> I (ee) or y.
O -> short o
V -> consonant U (ow) or v
E -> ey or ay.

This gives two pronunciations of Jove. Ee ow ay, or I o veh.

Funny, how both of those mean God."
and Theos = Zeus = Dyeus = Dios = Dieux = Dio = God.

So again, two paths each to the same result: That Rome usurped the Jewish religion, and replaced it with its own.

And only one derivation contrary, that requires two ad hoc assumptions, and poor Latin.

[4insight]

From Post 38:

JoeyKnothead,

Truthfully, I am surprised that you haven't been banned as yet, by insinuating that Jesus was gay by your blatant innuendo of "did Jesus speak Greek?"

I asked if he spoke a language that some folks speak, that such language happens to be Greek is not to ask if he spoke with something poking him.

Barring that there are many passages that may allude to the possible fact that Jesus may have been gay, seemingly this topic should not be brought up in this forum or when with family. Some things should remain in the closet.

I object to the notion that homosexuality should be confined to "the closet", on the basis of the traumas and horrors homosexuals have faced throughout history, and still face to this day.

They have every right in the world to have their story told, they need their story told and if one's "family" ain't comfortable with it, I propose it's one's "family" who needs to hide in the closet.

Homosexuality during the past wasn't considered as a wrongful thing to practice. Zuess was considered as a god that had kidnapped a young boy for sex. But back then, they did not had thought that child abduction was wrong. The Jews had married women at the age when they had started their monthly, that it were considered as womanhood. And so A Jew married woman even at the age of 12. The abolitionist John Brown had married a woman at the age of 16, and which it were common back in those days. The boys even drank wine starting at the age of 12 or younger. It were the laws that prevented the Jews from practicing Homosexuality, but other tribes or nation haven't give any thought about it. and so there were no regulations about the way you have sex and to whom you have sex with.



Pederasty in ancient Greece was a socially acknowledged erotic relationship between an adult male (the erastes) and a younger male (the eromenos) usually in his teens.[2] It was characteristic of the Archaic and Classical periods.[3] The influence of pederasty on Greek culture of these periods was so pervasive that it has been called "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens."[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty ... ent_Greece

[Willum]

[Replying to 4insight]

Of course, you make a very interesting point...
However, if you go with school of thought that God is female, as I have heard folks say...
That puts Mary in a very interesting position.

[4insight]

[Replying to 4insight]

Of course, you make a very interesting point...
However, if you go with school of thought that God is female, as I have heard folks say...
That puts Mary in a very interesting position.

There is no distinguishing marks on spirits and since God is a invisible spirit that does not have any reason to use male intromittent organ and or any other physical body part to perform any type of work for Him. We just put God in the category as being a male, because in those days, the male was considered as the head of the household, the provider, and the woman is the assistant. But God has no gender at all, but He is a very stern or masculine spirit that has a soft side at times.


Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Zzyzx]

.

There is no distinguishing marks on spirits and since God is a invisible spirit that does not have any reason to use male intromittent organ and or any other physical body part to perform any type of work for Him.

Since God is invisible (and undetectable) HOW does anyone KNOW its characteristics?

Did ancient religion promoters KNOW the characteristics of God, as their stories seem to indicate? If so, HOW did they learn about the invisible / undetectable "spirit"?

Did they use their imagination?

We just put God in the category as being a male, because in those days, the male was considered as the head of the household, the provider, and the woman is the assistant.

Many societies and religions of ancient biblical times were male dominated. It is not surprising that they imagined a "god" that was male.

Is that binding on people today?

But God has no gender at all, but He is a very stern or masculine spirit that has a soft side at times.

How do you know about God's gender? What assures that it could not be female?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by JLB32168]

Hello, JLB,

You offer us your opinion which is based on false information and pure conjecture. This is very unconvincing.

Did Jesus speak Greek?

Christs and the Apostles quotes more often come from the LXX version of the OT than from the Hebrew.

There are no original Hebrew NT texts.
They are all in Greek.

When he said, My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me he quoted a Hebrew text, which would require knowledge of Hebrew, which would suggest education since Hebrew was no longer the lingua franca but was strictly a liturgical language.

If Jesus was a rabbi, he would be able to read the OT, which was in Hebrew. And still, the question isn't whether Jesus could have known Hebrew, but if he knew Greek or ever spoke Greek to his flock.

He presumably resided in Egypt with his parents for a time when he was young. His name is recorded as Iesous rather than Joshua. Judea had been occupied for two centuries by Greece before Christ was born. His word play with Nicodemus (a Greek name and not Hebrew/Aramaic) requires Greek words or it makes no sense.

The story has it that Jesus could not have been older than two years old when he was in Egypt.

Word play would be child's play to a well educated GREEK writer. We have Greek NT texts, we don't know if Jesus ( if he had existed ) would have known any Greek.

I would submit he was bilingual " most likely preferring Greek given the amount of time he was in Jerusalem, which was a cosmopolitan city.

You submit an opinion, and are entitled to it. As to any evidence or proof ..you offer only conjecture and false data. Your submission should be completely rejected.

[JLB32168]

You offer us your opinion which is based on false information and pure conjecture. This is very unconvincing.

How does the fact that there are no extant Hebrew NT texts change anything - assuming there ever were such texts? What is false information here? Why would anything be written in Hebrew if Aramaic was the spoken language? As for conjecture/estimation/supposition " are you saying that it is out of order in a debate??

If Jesus was a rabbi, he would be able to read the OT, which was in Hebrew.

I dont disagree with you. I just dont see how its relevant to a discussion on whether or not he spoke Greek. Do you think he did or didnt?

The story has it that Jesus could not have been older than two years old when he was in Egypt.

My son will be three quite soon. He understands English commands and speaks a few words. We dont know how long Christ was in Egypt. If his parents resided there for two years then are you saying its unreasonable to conclude that they spoke Greek?

We have Greek NT texts, we don't know if Jesus (if he had existed) would have known any Greek.

No one is asserting that he definitively spoke Greek. What is being asserted is that it is logical and reasonable to conclude that he spoke Greek. Whether or not it is true cannot be determined w/o speaking to Christ himself and that is no longer possible.

You submit an opinion, and are entitled to it.

Is my opinion ill-informed and founded upon no warrant of evidence " since youre so quick to say it is pure conjecture coupled with false data?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 57 by JLB32168]


Hello, JLB.

Here are your problems so far:

1. Conjecture is not fact. You seem to mistake the two.
2. The NT was written in GREEK. ( as far as we know )
3. The fact that Jesus ( if he had existed ) or any other rabbi would be conversant in HEBREW does NOT mean that he would have been conversant in GREEK.

You offer us your opinion which is based on false information and pure conjecture. This is very unconvincing.

How does the fact that there are no extant Hebrew NT texts change anything - assuming there ever were such texts?

Right... why should we assume that?

What is false information here? Why would anything be written in Hebrew if Aramaic was the spoken language? As for conjecture/estimation/supposition " are you saying that it is out of order in a debate??

Conjecture is NOT facts, in debate or out of it.

The NT was in Greek, not in HEBREW or ARAMAIC or CHINESE for that matter.
Get your facts straight.

If Jesus was a rabbi, he would be able to read the OT, which was in Hebrew.

I dont disagree with you. I just dont see how its relevant to a discussion on whether or not he spoke Greek. Do you think he did or didnt?

I have NO idea if he spoke Greek or not.
I dont even know if Jesus ever existed at all.

The story has it that Jesus could not have been older than two years old when he was in Egypt.

My son will be three quite soon. He understands English commands and speaks a few words. We dont know how long Christ was in Egypt. If his parents resided there for two years then are you saying its unreasonable to conclude that they spoke Greek?

Yes, as the conclusion is based on bad data and mere conjecture.

We can speculate all day long and that would prove NOTHING. Just because some Greek might have been used in Egypt does NOT mean that anyone traveling there would have learned that language. In any case.. conjecture IS NOT FACT.

We have Greek NT texts, we don't know if Jesus (if he had existed) would have known any Greek.

No one is asserting that he definitively spoke Greek. What is being asserted is that it is logical and reasonable to conclude that he spoke Greek.

You can assert your opinion all day long, and it proves NOTHING but that you have an opinion.

You are quite free to have opinions.

Whether or not it is true cannot be determined w/o speaking to Christ himself and that is no longer possible.

I have to agree. We don't know if Jesus ( had he existed ) spoke any Greek.

You submit an opinion, and are entitled to it.

Is my opinion ill-informed and founded upon no warrant of evidence " since youre so quick to say it is pure conjecture coupled with false data?

Sadly, yes.

Conjecture is not data, and we should get our facts straight.

[Hawkins]

I've heard it on more'n one occassion that English language bibles are faulty, 'cause they ain't written in the "original" Greek.

Which leads me to ask for debate:


Did Jesus speak Greek?

If English translations of Greek are faulty, ain't Greek translations of Jesus' Aramaic faulty?

If a translation is faulty, should it be relied upon to make life impacting decisions?

The question is rather. What is your suggestion?

Besides, if God made a non faulty translation through men, can you tell?


Moreover, since humans are assumed to be impossible of carrying message without fault. If someone yells "there's a bomb" in a public area. Will you stay simply because humans can be faulty for you to make a life impacting decision?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 59 by Hawkins]

Hello, Hawkins!

It's the first time that I engage with you.
I hope to have many more.

I have spotted a few logical inconsistencies in what I am replying to:

Inconsistency 1.

It's inconsistent to only look at ONE side of an equation and ignore the other side. Consistent logic would evaluate both sides to see if they are EQUAL. We can't evaluate a double sided proposition by IGNORING one side or the other.

Inconsistency 2.

We don't want to be wrong. So, the truth of any message that we live our lives upon matters. It seems to me that your "there's a bomb" example would be quite FOOLISH to ignore. But then, it would NOT be consistent with that logic if we were to NOT test for an actual bomb AFTER the fact. We don't want to be made FOOLS of, and be wrong, or we will believe way too much. If we don't TEST our cherished beliefs, we don't KNOW if they are wrong. But then, it seems inconsistent to not care about being wrong, if we say we care about being wrong.

Here goes:

The question is rather. What is your suggestion?

MY suggestion is that we don't base our lives on false beliefs.

Besides, if God made a non faulty translation through men, can you tell?

You use the one sided logic of confirmation bias. You don't seem to realize that by saying that you COMPLETELY ignore the other side of the equation. HOW COULD WE TELL one way or another?

Why simply ASSUME something? It seems that you are assuming that the Greek translations were perfect. Is that a defensible position? If so, please defend it.

Moreover, since humans are assumed to be impossible of carrying message without fault.

You are only looking at ONE side of the proposition. While it's true that we can't assume that a translation is IMPERFECT, we also can't assume that it WASN'T. So your point is actually a wash. What you conclude is incorrect because you didn't look at both sides. That was what I mean above in logical inconsistency 1.

In this case, we are talking about the accuracy of a translation, and not a warning that could impact our well being such as "there's a bomb". Regardless, we should get out of the building, faulty message or not. But it doesn't mean AT ALL that the warning had any merit. People often get arrested for making false declarations.

But should we base our lives on faulty messages?
That has not yet been addressed in your reply.

We await your answer to that.

If someone yells "there's a bomb" in a public area. Will you stay simply because humans can be faulty for you to make a life impacting decision?

It would be FOOLISH to not pay attention of warnings that could potentially end our lives. BUT if would be equally foolish IF NOT MORE.. to not check if there IS a bomb.

If we don't FIND a bomb, it would be EVEN MORE foolish to pretend there was one.

You seem to want us to pretend that the Greek translators were perfect.... Without knowing ANYTHING about them at all. They might have been making it all up, like some bogus bomb threats, for god knows WHAT reasons.

So, in our quest for the TRUTH, it seems to me that you are advocating FOOLISHNESS, and that's what I called inconsistency 2.