Please, load more videos! You're awesome and I've been learning lots with this! Perfect! Oh, and you're voice is very nice for speaking both languages!
you all probably dont care at all but does any of you know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I was stupid forgot my login password. I love any tips you can give me.
@James Major I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out atm. Seems to take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@ܝܘܚܢܢ Daniel is distinctive about the son of man not being God. It is closed by this in Daniel. About the divine part, see the Greek of Aramaic of the word, it is not worship in the case of man. It is about serving, see the LXX, for example. If he is a son of man, he is not divine. Son of man is a human being. A human being can come in the clouds, it does not mean that one that comes in a cloud is God only because the language was similarly used in different contexts. See the Hebrew of the verse in Isaiah, there is a different way of expression and the context is about Egypt. Consider if the like יהוה is in the text or it is an interpretation referring to the son of man. Man can receive dominion. Isaiah 9 is different in the Hebrew, some or all the verbs are in the past. This verse was not used in the bible to refer to Jesus, I will not comment if applys or not in this case now. About the El usage for man, it is used like in Exodus 7 1, but when is referred to human beings, like Isaiah, it is understood that the human is not God himself, there is reason for the usage in this cases. One point, Moses received authority, but he is not himself God nor is to be identified as intrinsically as being God. Not entering too much about the application in those cases, but it has to do with authority as I pointed out. About Isaiah 53 in the Hebrew, from what I know. Verse 5, it is not for in Hebrew is from, according to what I understand מ prefix to mean.Verse 8, same situation, the LXX agrees. Verse 10, sorry I am not the best to translate from the Hebrew, but this translation is definitely not literally expressed by the text. Word for word is something like guilt soul his... The word offering is not expressed. Is relevant to note that the LXX has a different text, nothing about being the will of God to cause him to suffer. I could not identify in the Hebrew who the verb translated having the ideia of making is referring to, but definitely there is not an reference to the name. See some view in Matthew 8 17 about this verse. Jesus did not die as the common vicarious atonement doctrine. How one understood that the child would be ruling from the throne of God? The text does not say that anywhere in Isaiah. The name of the person is not literally the name of God and the person is God, this is not the way to see it. Names had meaning at that time. See the name of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Joshua in the Hebrew, if you want to know. All of them have reference to God, but none of them are God. See verse 5 of Micah. I am not saying if this is about Jesus or not. Eternity is the word that makes reference to age (not entering if it is adjective of substantive) in the LXX. This does not mean that the person was uncreated, if this is the point. There is no incarnation in the text. Eternal son? He is the monoyenis son of God, in other words, he is the only born or only that came into being and this means that he had a beginning. He is a man born of Joseph. I believe similarly to the ebionites, the ones that viewed Jesus as a man.
@ܝܘܚܢܢ I am not a from the religion called Islam. Monoyenis is basically the only begotten son in a translation in English and this word in greek indicate begining of being. John 1 45, there are other verses that cite Joseph as his father. He came from God by what he meant by it. Jesus is a man. John 8 40.
Awesome!🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Your voice is literally perfect for both the English and the Latin
بارك الله بيكم على هذا العمل الرائع
Please, load more videos! You're awesome and I've been learning lots with this! Perfect! Oh, and you're voice is very nice for speaking both languages!
you all probably dont care at all but does any of you know of a way to get back into an Instagram account??
I was stupid forgot my login password. I love any tips you can give me.
@Luca Tripp Instablaster ;)
@James Major I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out atm.
Seems to take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
@James Major it worked and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much you really help me out!
@Luca Tripp You are welcome xD
Thank you for these recordings... You don't know what a great they make
Love this! Thank you!
Thank you so much. Studying love learning the latin.
It's so nice study, and I want the sections of Mark.
Thank you for recording this! Now I can take it in at work!
I enjoyed this!
great et interesting
Thankyou so much im subscribed for your voice please continue .
Awesome!!!
Thanks! Just subscribed in case you continue this series. :)
thank you
Thanks a lot^^
Great work but please can you collect all works in one three or even 4 hours tube.
Nossa que interessante
veri gut
Is this same as King James Version of the Bible or different ?
Shahab Ebr, It's the Douay Rheims Bible.
@@paynedv what is the rheims exactly?
FlashFan 11 it is the Latin vulgate in English
awesome latin pronunciation!
i think C is always pronounced K (ka ke ki ko ku) as well as g (ga ge gi go gu).
Alejandro Esperantisto I think hes speaking in church latin, where Gs and Cs are pronounced this way if followed by a vowel.
He’s speaking in Ecclesiastical Latin.
can you get Benedict Cumberbatch to audio it ??? for 2024 ,
he is pronouncing Latin like vulgar or ecclesiastical sounds.i suppose he's Reading the Vulgata version. that's the reason, I guess.
yes i completely agree, espically with some of the constants like V's
@@haaniballector9138 yeah, it is Vulgata version. He is using "j" instead of "i" in so e words. He has a good voice, but must change the accent.
I see French words.
Hello reaccionen
so great! Are there other books, such as Matthew and 1 Peter?
The son of man is a man and not God. Mark 12 28 34.
@ܝܘܚܢܢ God is no son of man. He is not son, nor a man. He is also not a son of a man. He is God.
@ܝܘܚܢܢ Daniel is distinctive about the son of man not being God. It is closed by this in Daniel.
About the divine part, see the Greek of Aramaic of the word, it is not worship in the case of man. It is about serving, see the LXX, for example.
If he is a son of man, he is not divine. Son of man is a human being.
A human being can come in the clouds, it does not mean that one that comes in a cloud is God only because the language was similarly used in different contexts. See the Hebrew of the verse in Isaiah, there is a different way of expression and the context is about Egypt.
Consider if the like יהוה is in the text or it is an interpretation referring to the son of man. Man can receive dominion.
Isaiah 9 is different in the Hebrew, some or all the verbs are in the past. This verse was not used in the bible to refer to Jesus, I will not comment if applys or not in this case now. About the El usage for man, it is used like in Exodus 7 1, but when is referred to human beings, like Isaiah, it is understood that the human is not God himself, there is reason for the usage in this cases. One point, Moses received authority, but he is not himself God nor is to be identified as intrinsically as being God. Not entering too much about the application in those cases, but it has to do with authority as I pointed out.
About Isaiah 53 in the Hebrew, from what I know. Verse 5, it is not for in Hebrew is from, according to what I understand מ prefix to mean.Verse 8, same situation, the LXX agrees.
Verse 10, sorry I am not the best to translate from the Hebrew, but this translation is definitely not literally expressed by the text. Word for word is something like guilt soul his... The word offering is not expressed. Is relevant to note that the LXX has a different text, nothing about being the will of God to cause him to suffer. I could not identify in the Hebrew who the verb translated having the ideia of making is referring to, but definitely there is not an reference to the name.
See some view in Matthew 8 17 about this verse.
Jesus did not die as the common vicarious atonement doctrine.
How one understood that the child would be ruling from the throne of God? The text does not say that anywhere in Isaiah.
The name of the person is not literally the name of God and the person is God, this is not the way to see it. Names had meaning at that time. See the name of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Joshua in the Hebrew, if you want to know. All of them have reference to God, but none of them are God.
See verse 5 of Micah. I am not saying if this is about Jesus or not. Eternity is the word that makes reference to age (not entering if it is adjective of substantive) in the LXX. This does not mean that the person was uncreated, if this is the point.
There is no incarnation in the text.
Eternal son? He is the monoyenis son of God, in other words, he is the only born or only that came into being and this means that he had a beginning. He is a man born of Joseph.
I believe similarly to the ebionites, the ones that viewed Jesus as a man.
@ܝܘܚܢܢ I am not a from the religion called Islam.
Monoyenis is basically the only begotten son in a translation in English and this word in greek indicate begining of being.
John 1 45, there are other verses that cite Joseph as his father.
He came from God by what he meant by it.
Jesus is a man. John 8 40.
@Efraim Bar Tolmai I revised my comment on monoyenis.
Awesome!!!!