I found somthing was interesting in a book called the More Light on the Gospel by an author named George M Lamsa. “He was born in Mar Bishu in what is now the extreme east of Turkey. A native Aramaic speaker, he translated the Aramaic Peshitta (literally "straight, simple") Old and New Testaments into English. - www.wikipedia.com”
Todays blog is on the famous bible verse 3:16 – What does it mean? I am not a Christian but many Christians I find use this passage as a means to justify that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. But this author seems to have a different view... as stated above he translated this particular passage from an aramaic perspective (The aramaic language was the language of Jesus). In his translations he is explaining symbolism, metaphores and idioms in that are in the bible – that we really don't understand.
His book More Light on the Gospel says a mouthful.... It is easy to decieve a person if he/she do not understand what you are saying. George brings light to most of the questionable passages that in the bible. Hopefully this will bring some explainations to Christians, Non-Christians and Athesists alike.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
“DID GOD PAY A RANSOM?
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
No verse in the Holy Bible is more quoted than this one, and yet none is probably more theologically misunderstood. This
is because the Western reader does not understand Eastern customs and mannerisms of speech.
Indeed, many scholars and preachers of the gospel sincerely believe that God sacrificed Jesus of Nazareth to appease the Devil and the evil forces. Some teachers say that God, through Jesus' death on the cross, paid a debt to the Devil in order to free man from sin. Others use the term "redemption," meaning that God paid a ransom or a price in order to redeem mankind from evil forces. Still others say that God reconciled or appeased
His own wrath against humanity through the death of His beloved son.
It is interesting to note that nearly all the passages which in the King James version read "redemption," in the ancient Eastern,
or Aramaic, text (Larosa) read porkana, "salvation." Redemption
is made effective by means of a payment or a ransom,
but no price is ever paid when a person is saved from danger.
It is often said that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that our sins could never have been forgiven without his death. The Aramaic word mitol means "because," or, "on account of," or "for," but the preferred meaning is ''because.'' I am inclined to believe that Jesus died because of our sins, because of man's transgression against God's law.
Humanity, in Jesus' day, was just as sinful as it is today. The world has been dominated by sin since Adam and Eve first transgressed the law. If man had not broken the law, Jesus would not have had to die. On the other hand, God, being the loving Father, does not need to be appeased by his children.
~
No human father would try to appease his wrath by putting one
of his sons to death.
Now, if we assume that Jesus died to appease the forces of
evil, then seemingly evil was stronger than the good-God. On
the other hand, it is usually the weaker who pays the stronger,
the vanquished who pays tribute to the victor. Therefore, such
an act would not only prove that the Devil, or Satan, is an
entity, but also a force or power equal to or greater than God.
Moreover, if God delivered His son to sinful men to be
crucified to appease His own wrath and thus reconcile himself with His children, then He could hardly be a God of love, a loving Father.
Customarily, only pagans killed their sons in honor of kings and princes. They also offered them as sacrifices in order to appease their wrath, and redeemed captives by payment of ransom. The King of Moab offered his son, the crown prince, who was to reign in his place, to appease the wrath of the kings who fought against him. (II Kings 3:27) Moreover, feudal chieftains, in order to settle blood feuds, sacrifice a member of their tribe to bring reconciliation. Baal worship was founded on this idea of reconciling gods through human sacrifices and other offerings. But the Jews, having been admonished by God, inaugurated the practice of animal rather than human sacrifice;
Some theologians say that Jesus took our sins upon himself and offered them to God; others say that God forsook Jesus on the cross because He could not look on the sins Jesus was bearing. Yet in the Gospel we read that when Jesus forgave sinners, all he said was, "Go and sin no more." He did not say, "Offer something to appease God's wrath." Of course the Jews, like the pagans, often tried to appease God's wrath by means of sacrifice and offerings, at times even offering their children. Moreover, in the Bible we read that God sees every evil thing which man does, and nothing is hidden from His eyes.
Assuredly, the death of Jesus on the cross was predicted by the prophet Isaiah. The latter knew that anyone who would venture to challenge the temple religion and the corrupt systems of this world would meet with death. The prophet did not at 'any time say that Jesus' death would reconcile God or pay a debt to the forces of evil. '
Jesus, in his teachings, condemned hypocrisy, injustice, exploitation
and the misuse of religion; All the Hebrew prophets who had spoken out against evil kings and princes and the wicked order of their days had met with the same fate, and for this cause they were all killed or stoned.
Jesus' death was different in that he was willing to die, knowing
that he would rise again from death. Therefore, his death was a triumph, and his grave is still the only empty one. In
other words, God permitted the death of His beloved son in order to reveal the depth of His love to humanity.
The Scripture says God is love. Indeed, love could not demand
human sacrifices, because there is nothing in love to be appeased. Jesus died on the cross not to appease God or the
evil forces, but to prove that life is indestructible and everlasting through his death on the cross inaugurated a new world order.
the order of meekness and loving-kindness.”
Source:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 68--2 7125
William. Moran, Jr., of Norristown, Pennsylvania, as
COPYRIGHT © 1968 BY GEORGE M. LAMSA
3 comments:
"The Aramaic word mitol means "because," or, "on account of," or "for," but the preferred meaning is ''because.'' I am inclined to believe that Jesus died BECAUSE of our sins, BECAUSE of man's transgression against God's law." (George M Lamsa.)
(Basically what he is trying to say is that Jesus did NOT die FOR our sins)
Now, let us examine such claims according to reason and mathematical logic, (not BIASED beliefs) and enlighten the readers of this article to understand some logical fallacies made by this "theologian" or "scholar". First, we all must admit that mitol means one of three things (which is used to interpret John 3:16) It either means that Jesus died,"because of our sins", "on account of our sins" or "for our sins". As we can see their can only be three interpretations to the word mitol. So logically and mathematically we are left with three ways to interpret John 3:16. The question that follows from this logical exercise is - Which interpretation is most probable?
Now according to the author of this article, "because" seems to be the most probable way of interpreting John 3:16. QUESTION: Why? ANSWER: Well according to language it seems to be the "preferred meaning". QUESTION: What do we mean by "preferred meaning"? ANSWER: Simply that it was used more in common language. So, basically in simple terms, he is more inclined to believe the MOST POPULAR interpretation. Since is it MORE POPULAR, it is more likely that "because" is the correct interpretation! In other words popularity SEEMS to assure what John 3:16 was really trying to convey! Right? Well... not exactly...
I shall now present the authors premise in simple terms and analyze it according to mathematical functions (in this case I will use the function of modus pollens (basically a logical function used in philosophy, theology and mathematics)
The premise goes as follows:
(1) "Because" is the most common or popular way of interpreting the word mitol
(2) Since it is MORE POPULAR, it is more likely that "because" is the correct interpretation.
(3)Conclusion - "because" is the correct interpretation!
As we can see, Premise (1) is undeniably true for it is a factual statement. Premise (2) makes a statement based on probability, which automatically follows from premise (1). Both of these premises according to logic are valid. The problem that we encounter here is premise (3), which is the conclusion. Logically Premise (3) DOES NOT follow from premise (2) or (1). Does popularity ensure the correctness of an answer? Does popularity of an interpretation conclusively block out all of the other options? Should popularity of an answer give us FULL conviction that "because" is the correct interpretation? Obviously, according to logic, the answer to all these questions is simply NO. To accept conclusion (3) is to accept a logical fallacy. Why? Because conclusion (3) does not follow from its premises and can easily be contested with further investigation. In other words, conclusion (3) is simply not conclusive and to accept it as conclusive would commit a logical fallacy.
Now I shall argue that in fact it is just as probable (if not more) that "for" is the correct interpretation for the following reason. We must understand the Bible in its entirety. We cannot make judgments on the interpretation of mitol based solely on popularity or just on one bible verse. We must understand and respect time, culture, and customs just like any good scholar should do. The more we inquire into history and culture the more likely will we be able to understand what the correct interpretation is. On this same note I will now inquire into second Isaiah and show that in FACT Isaiah DID say that Jesus' death would reconcile us with God, thus dying FOR our sins. This will come into direct conflict with the following statement made previously by the author,
Statement (1)
"Assuredly, the death of Jesus on the cross was predicted by the prophet Isaiah. The latter (being Isaiah) knew that anyone who would venture to challenge the temple religion and the corrupt systems of this world would meet with death. The prophet did not at 'any time say that Jesus' death would reconcile us with God ..."(George M Lamsa.)
(I must make it clear that the author of this statement agrees that Isaiah was speaking about Jesus. Also the section about reconciliation will be contested in the following paragraph)
Let me pull up some verses from the Harper Collins Study Bible, which is in prominent use for theologians and atheists where there is little room for biases. First i will show verses and then i will comment on each one.
(1) (Isa53:5) But he (being Jesus) was wounded FOR our transgressions, crushed FOR our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us WHOLE
(2)(Isa53:6) We have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has LAID ON HIM the iniquity of US all.
(3)(Isa53:8) For HE was cut off from the land of the living, stricken FOR the transgression of my people.
(4)(Isa53:11) The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
(5)(Isa53:12) Because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; YET he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Now the author states that the prophet Isaiah did not at any time say that Jesus death would reconcile us with God or pay a debt. But this is obviously wrong. For example in (1) Isaiah states that upon him was the punishment that made us whole. What does "whole" mean? Well obviously it means for us to be in a state of well being, a state of grace, and state of peace. In other words we are reconciled with God who is peace and well being itself! Just this one verse already refutes his claim about Isaiah and reconciliation. (5) In particular states, "He bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." What does intercession mean? Well in both Christianity and Islam, it is a prayer to God on behalf of another person. It is a bridge that unites one to God. a bridge that leads us to love it self, where being in communion with love IS the essence of being whole. It is essentially reconciliation with the deity whether you are a Christian or Muslim or X or Y or Z... Again, we can see two statements that clearly show that the prophet Isaiah in fact DID say that Jesus' death would reconcile us with God, thus dying "for" our sins.
So...whats the point?! Well the point is to recognize 2 things.
(1) The author of the article commits logical fallacies.
(2) Reading the bible and understanding it in its entirety actually gives inclinations toward the interpretation of "for" instead of "because".
These are 2 points I wish to stress when a person reads the above article. We must use reason when discussing matters of history, culture and faith. We must use logic and try to avoid logical fallacies, which we are all susceptible to. I hope when you read this you realize that "for" more likely to be the correct interpretation due to the book of Isaiah which helps explain John 3:16 in a greater light.
PS: excuse my grammatical mistakes, I am writing this in a rush but if time permits i will correct spelling mistakes or expand notes for the sake of clarification...
God bless.
Roberto Martinez.
Post a Comment