Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Eucharist and Statues

Protestants reject the Eucharist as being actually substantially Christ's body and blood and opt for a symbolic view on the basis that eating blood and flesh of man is forbidden by the laws of Moses, therefore it would be "unclean" for Christ to actually do this. 

However, Protestants generally make another argue that's unrelated about statues and images. They say the Laws of Moses forbid making statues and graven images in Exodus 20 in the 10 commandments, then say it does not matter that Exodus 25 has God ordering Moses to make a statue of angels on the ark, since its an exception and God specifically gave him orders to build it, so its ok for Moses.

Now, if we are to apply this reasoning to the Eucharistic debate their logic backfires on them.  They would have to admit that despite God prohibiting eating flesh and blood in the Law, that if God (in the person of Christ) instructs people to eat His flesh and Blood, then it is lawful and must be done, since orders were given to do precisely that. So the Protestant's symbolic view of the Eucharist on the basis of prohibition of blood backfires on them and shows they have a double standard.

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath--Exodus 20:3
And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them, at the two ends of the ark-cover. --Exodus 25:18
But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.--Deuteronomy 12:23
 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.--John 6:53
Law                                                                                      God's "special instruction"
Don't drink blood (Deuteronomy 12:23)                             "Drink my blood" (John 6:53)
Don't make a graven images (Exodus 20:3)                        "make two cherubim of gold"(Exodus 25:18)

Furthermore, the law explains why not to "eat" the blood, because the "blood is the life" and Jesus said you must drink His blood to have life!

Also, some explain the commandment to drink His blood as a symbol that they are no longer bound to the laws of Moses but under a new covenant with new promises.

*Also Acts states:

avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood--Acts 15:20 (some debate if drinking blood is alluded to here at all, some believe its an expression for violence)
Regardless, if we are to accept the Protestant reasoning that a specific commandment may be an exception to a general rule, then even if Acts 15:20 addresses drinking blood, it does not matter since a specific command was given to do it in a special case with Christ.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Abba means "my father" and not "daddy' or "dad" or "papa"

Here is evidence Abba does not mean "daddy" we see Joseph addressing Pharoah talking about his father and brothers, and the accompanying Aramaic translation.  The Hebrew has avi  , the Aramaic has aba אַבָּא 
 
Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said: 'My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.' --Genesis 47:1
 
וַיָּבֹא יוֹסֵף, וַיַּגֵּד לְפַרְעֹה, וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וְאַחַי וְצֹאנָם וּבְקָרָם וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם, בָּאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וְהִנָּם, בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן--Genesis 47:1 Masoretic Hebrew text
 
וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי וְעָנְהוֹן וְתוֹרֵיהוֹן וְכָל דִּילְהוֹן, אֲתוֹ מֵאַרְעָא דִּכְנָעַן; וְהָא אִנּוּן, בְּאַרְעָא דְּגֹשֶׁן. --Genesis 47:1 Onkelos Aramaic Translation using Hebrew font

The Hebrew text reads Avi אָבִי  , 'my father', the Aramaic reads אַבָּא aba, though another site has it as אַבָה --ava.
 
Now if Abba/Aba/a means "daddy" how silly would it be for Joseph--the prime minister of Egypt to address his boss concerning his father and brother using the word "daddy"? It would have been embarrassing! Granted Joseph probably did not use either Abba or Avi, since he would have been speaking Coptic to the Pharoah, however the Hebrew bible and the Aramaic translation of it use the ORDINARY word for "my father" which are avi and aba/ava.
 
Furthermore, Barabbas, has the word abba in it, yet no one supposes this means "son of daddy,"
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.--Mark 15:7 Greek (almost every manuscript)
The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.--Mark 15:7 NASB
 ܘܐܣܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܓܒܪܐ ܥܒܕ ܒܝܫܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܒܪ ܐܒܐ ܘܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܓܒܪܐ ܕܥܒܕ ܒܝܫܬܐ ܘܩܛܠ ܩܛܠܐ--Mark 15:7, Old Syriac Sinaiticus
 ܘܐܝܬܼ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܚܕܼ ܕܿܡܬܼܩܪܐ܂ ܒܿܪ ܐܒܿܐ܂ ܕܿܐܣܝܪ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܥܡ ܥܒܼܕܿܝ̈ ܐܣܛܣܝܢ܂ ܗܢܘܼܢ ܕܿܩܛܠܐ ܒܿܐܣܛܣܝܢ ܥܒܼܕܼܘ--Mark 15:7 Peshitta Text
 We see the Aramaic texts (old Syriac and Peshitta) have Aba/Ava spelled the same as the Aramaic text of Genesis 47:1 "וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי " Here is how two popular Protestant lexicons explain the name "Bar Abbas"

Thayer

Barabbas = "son of a father or master"
1) the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine

Strong

G912
Of Chaldee origin ([H1347] and G5 (Greek)); son of Abba; Bar-abbas, an Israelite: - Barabbas.
We see it is either a name, or just how to say "father", and if it is a name, its not likely a parent will name their son "daddy" (unless they're Hispanic, but even it would be a petname).
 
Now, let's go to the texts where the word "Abba" appears in Greek and English untranslated: 
And He was saying, Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”--Mark 14:36 NASB
 
The Aramaic texts of this gospel read:
ܘܸܐܡܲܪ܂ ܐܲܒܼܵܐ   ܐܵܒܼܝ܃   ܟܿܽܠ ܡܸܕܸܿܡ ܡܸܫܟܿܲܚ ܐܲܢ̱ܬܿ܂ ܐܲܥܒܿܲܪ ܡܸܢܝ ܟܿܵܣܵܐ ܗܵܢܵܐ܂ ܐܸܠܵܐ ܠܵܐ ܨܸܒܼܝܵܢܝ ܕܼܿܝܠܝ܂ ܐܸܠܵܐ ܕܼܿܝܠܵܟܼ--Mark 14:36 Peshitta Text
And he said, Father, my Father, thou canst (do) every thing, cause to pass from me this cup: but not my will, but thine.--Mark 14:36, Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation  
ܘܐܡܪ ܐܒܝ ܟܘܠ ܡܕܡ ܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܟ ܡܛܐ ܐܥܒܪ ܡܢܝ ܟܣܐ ܗܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܠܐ ܨܒܝܢܝ ܕܝܠܝ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܠܐ ܕܝܠܟ--Mark 14:36 old Syriac Sinaiticus 
 "And He said, My Father, everything is in your hands, it has arrived. Make this cup pass from me, yet not according to my will, but according to your will."--Mark 14:36 translation of Old Syriac Sinaiticus page 364

 Elsewhere in the Peshitta text of Mark we see the SAME EXACT spelling of Aba being used
 ܥܢܵܐ ܝܸܫܘܼܥ܂ ܘܸܐܡܲܪ܂ ܐܲܡܼܝܢ ܐܵܡܲܪ ܐ̱ܢܵܐ ܠܟܼܘܼܢ܃ ܕܿܠܲܝܬܿ ܐ̱ܢܵܫ ܕܿܫܵܒܼܸܩ ܒܿܵܬܸܿܐ̈ ܐܲܘ ܐܲܚܸܐ̈ ܐܲܘ ܐܲܚܘܵܬܼܵܐ̈܃ ܐܲܘ   ܐܲܒܼܵܐ   ܐܲܘ ܐܸܡܵܐ܃ ܐܲܘ ܐܲܢ̱ܬܿܬܼܵܐ ܐܲܘ ܒܿܢܲܝܵܐ̈܃ ܐܲܘ ܩܘܼܪܝܵܐ̈܂ ܡܸܛܽܠܵܬܼܝ܂ ܘܡܸܛܽܠ ܣܒܼܲܪܬܼܝ--Mark 10:29
 Jeshu responded and said, Amen I say to you, There is no man who forsaketh houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, on account of me, and on account of my gospel, --Mark 10:29 Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation
The Old Syriac has verses with the same spelling:
 ܢܫܠܡ ܓܝܪ ܐܚܐ ܠܐܚܘܗܝ ܠܡܘܬܐ   ܘܐܒܐ   ܠܒܪܗ ܘܢܩܘܡܘܢ ܒܢ̈ܝܐ ܥܠ ܐܒܗܬܐ ܘܢܡܝܬܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ--Mark 13:12 Old Syriac Sinaiticus
"For a brother will betray his brother to death, and a father [ܘܐܒܐ] his son, and children will rise up against their parents and kill them."--Mark 13:12 translation from The Old Syriac Gospels: Matthew and Mark
 Now for reference the other times Abba appears in the Greek texts of the New Testament untranslated:
 οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον, ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν· Αββα ὁ πατήρ·--Romans 8:15
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”--Romans 8:15 NASB
ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον· Αββα ὁ πατήρ.--Galatians 4:6  
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”--Galatians 4:6 NASB

 Finally, let's looks how dictionaries, lexicons, concordances refer to it as:

Thayer:

Abba = "father"
1) father, customary title used of God in prayer. Whenever it occurs in the New Testament it has the Greek interpretation joined to it, that is apparently to be explained by the fact that the Chaldee "ABBA" through frequent use in prayer, gradually acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue.
Part of Speech: noun
Citing in TDNT: 1:5, 1

Strong:

G5
Of Chaldee origin [H2]; father (as a vocative): - Abba. 

Louw-Nida:

GlossSection
Father (a title for God)12.12
From Hebrew Union College: 
 1 father Com. --(a) of humans Com. (a.1) honored senior, chief, master OfA-Egypt, JLAtg. (a.2) chief monk Syr. --(b) Heavenly, i.e. God (see also below s.v. ˀabbā) JLAtg, PTA, CPA, Syr. --(c) of animals: sire JBA.
  2 ancestor, forefather Com. --(a) pl. parents Qum, Syr, JBA. --(b) in particular, the three forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also sg. for any one of them) Qum, JLAtg, Gal, PTA, JBA. --(c) progenitor, spiritual founder PTA. --(d) the fathers of the Church Syr.
  3 ˀabbā : my father! (vocative) JLAtg, Gal, PTA, CPA, Syr, JBAmb.
  4 fig. Qum, JBA. --(a) creator, source Qum. --(b) common factor JBA. --(c) 'source' as an architectural term JLAtg.
  5 byt ˀb, ܒܝܬ ܐܒ : family, clan OA, Qum, Syr.
  6 as a personal name Syr, JBA.
  7 in compounds with relational terms . --(a) ˀb ˀbwhy: grandfather or ancestor Palm. --(b) אב דאב : paternal grandfather PTA, JBA. --(c) אבא דאימא : maternal grandfather JBA. --(d) אחא דאבא٠ אח אב : paternal uncle : see s.v. ˀḥb JBA.

Notice all of these say its just a way of saying father, biological or not and make no mention of it being a way of how a small child says "daddy." Yet sites like "gotquestions.com" ignorantly spread this "fact" around.

The blame and origin of claim "abba" means daddy seems to generally be placed on German Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias who gave this impression.
 

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Homosexuality and the Genetic Argument

Should the Genetic Argument--"born that way" be relevant in a moral discussion about homosexuality?

No. If we were to judge the morality of homosexuality on the basis of a person's genetic predisposition, it would only be logical to apply this reasoning towards all behaviors.  Some people are believed to be genetically predisposed to being more aggressive which in turn would cause them to be more likely to commit acts of violence.

IF homosexuality is arguably acceptable only the basis its genetic (if it is) then why is not violence likewise arguably acceptable on the basis on genetics? Double standard? I am not comparing homosexuality to violence as a lot of homosexual advocates might over simplify my argument to be, I am saying we must judge acts for themselves, and not look at genetics to justify them.  They might say homosexuality is consensual, violence is not, well if that is the case then how is the genetic argument relevant at all in the discussion of morality? It isn't.

Furthermore, if homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted on the basis its between consenting adult, then shouldn't it be acceptable for two consenting adults to give each other narcotics since its consensual, and doesn't harm others? By this reasoning it might be argued incest, self infliction, and suicide should be tolerated or accepted on the basis if a person if only harming himself and not others, or acting with free will and consent. 

Finally, why should a sexual act be recognized as acceptable by a society that is disproportionally linked to Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and has no real benefit to society as a whole, except PERHAPS as a sort of population control--removing a number of people from the breeding population.  Furthermore, if homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't the open homosexuality with homosexuals refraining from procreating decrease the future homosexual population? This may change though because of things like invitro fertilization.

Saturday, April 5, 2014

KJV 1611 and its Popishness

I have recently run into a community of Seventh Day Adventists that are very anti-Catholic and very pro-KJV, insisting that the other Bibles are riddled with the fleas of Popery. Let's check out some of the Popish Romanism the KJV 1611 is logged full of.

In the KJV 1611 Kalendar under February


Popish Holyday the "Purification of Mary" aka Candlemas is on February 2!

Popish feast day of St Valentine is listed under its present date February 14!

Prayers listed under February 2 includes Wisd. 9 and Wisd 12 (a Catholic book omitted in modern edition of the KJV 1611)

Prayers listed under February 24 includes Wisd xix (the last chapter of this papist book!)

Next Page--March

This page exposes even grander examples of the KJV's popery!


The Popish feast day of St Edward the Martyr--A Romish English, Saint, King and Martyr is listed under March 18 the traditional papist date

The Romish feast day of the Annunciation of Mary is listed under March 25--9 months before the holyday Christmas.

The Popish feast of the founder of Western monasticism St Benedict of Nursia is celebrated on March 21, as some do.

Even worse, in its most blatant, unashamed example of Popery yet it lists a Romish Pope on its Kalendar!

Pope Gregorie aka Gregory the Great (reigned AD 590-604) is listed under its present day of March 12!

Conclusion: This and many more show the Catholic influence in the King James Version 1611 Bible. A good seventh day Adventist or good Baptist should either reject this so called translation for its obvious influence by Popery or become a miserable papist himself! As it must be asked if Adventists and Baptists insist the KJV 1611 is perfect because of its pure manuscripts from Textus receptus of the Antioch Line, then why is it no Baptist or Adventist makes a modern-updated version of the text into modern English, rather than spend all the time on the older English of the KJV--since after all the NKJV is corrupt? Could it be no Baptist or Adventist is qualified to do such a thing, or that they cannot trust their own people?!

Friday, April 4, 2014

Is the Hebrew Bible Anti-Semitic?

Counter-missionaries accuse the New Testament of being anti-Semitic for having content where some Jews call other Jews names along the likes of stubborn, heart hearted, sons of the Devil, harlots and so one, but does this make the New Testament anti-Semitic? Let's take a look at the Hebrew Bible and see the criticism and names it calls the Jewish people.

Anti-Semitic Moses? Moses calls some Levites Rebellious, Stubborn, Corrupt:
Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying:....For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck; behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?....ye will in any wise deal corruptly--Deuteronomy 31:25,27,29
 Anti-Semitic God?
God calls Israel uncircumcised of heart and stubborn
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.--Deuteronomy 10:16
God calls Israel and Judah whores and talks about divorce
And the LORD said unto me in the days of Josiah the king: 'Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel  did? she went up upon every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and there played the harlot...And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot; --Jeremiah 3:6,8
God Calls Israel stiff-necked, threatens total annihilation except Moses' offspring 
 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people. Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee [Moses] a great nation.'--Exodus 32:9-10  
There is much more which if it were not found in the Hebrew Bible, it would appear to be the most anti-Semitic literature around--what worse can be said than when God called the whole Jewish community in Jeremiah whores? or when God says in the Torah that perhaps He should kill ALL the Jews? 

Conclusion: If it should be conceded the New Testament is a work of anti-Semitism because of pejoratives used by Jews towards other Jews, then by that same standard it should be admitted that the Hebrew Bible and the Torah itself are by far more Anti-Semitic, and should be categorized as the foremost books on hatred of Jews. 

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Aramaic Gospel uses word for Muslim!

Muslim theology believes that Islam did not start with their “prophet” Muhammad, but that it was the religion from the time of Adam, and that even Jesus was a Muslim! As evidence for this claim, some Islamic apologists make the following assertion:

Muslim argument from answering Christianity:
Let us look at Luke 6:40 from my N.I.V. Bible "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."
 The perfection here means a spiritual one.  What the verse is saying is that knowledge is not what matters!  The teacher or master is higher in knowledge than his student.  But the student can be as high as his teacher, or even higher, by being a true 'MUSHLAM' or Muslim, a spiritually perfect and well-disciplined person!
Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in the language of Aramaic translated into Hebrew as shown below 
אין תלמיד נעלה על רבו; שכן כל אדם שמשלם יהיה כרבו
"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."

This absurd argument is not saying that Lord Jesus speaking in Greek, Aramaic, or even Hebrew, or St Luke in the translation of the Aramaic Peshitta text has Jesus using the word Muslim, but that a MODERN day translation of the verse into Modern Hebrew from Aramaic uses a word that is similar to Muslim! Biblical Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible never uses the word שמשלם [shemmushlam], and משלם is used 19 times in the Hebrew Bible and even then 17 [e.g. 2 Kings 22:3, 1 Chronicles 3:19, Ezra 10:29, Nehemiah 3:4,...etc] of those times refers to a person’s name: מְשֻׁלָּם M'shullam, whereas the other two appear in Isaiah 66:6 and Jeremiah 51:6 and appear as follows:
It is the sound of the LORD repaying [מְשַׁלֵּם,m’shallém] his enemies all they deserve—Isaiah 66:6 (NIV)
קוֹל יְה, מְשַׁלֵּם גְּמוּל לְאֹיְבָיוIsaiah 66:6 Hebrew Text
Kol YHVH, m’shallem g’mul l’oyevav—Isaiah 66:6 transliteration

Let’s see Jeremiah 51:6

It is time for the Lord’s vengeance; he will repay [מְשַׁלֵּם, m’shallem] her what she deserves.—Jeremiah 51:6
כִּי עֵת נְקָמָה הִיא, לַיה--גְּמוּל, הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ–Jeremiah 51:6 Hebrew Text
Ki et n’kamah hi, l’YHVH—g’mul m’shallem lah-- Jeremiah 51:6 transliteration
Here we see the word is m’shallem, not Mushlam, or Muslim, or anything like that. So the word Muslim is NEVER used in Biblical Hebrew, and the closest is a person’s name, and the only time otherwise it is used in context of God smiting His enemies! Certainly less than complimentary for Islam.

If we were to look at the same chapter the Muslim provides for the word Muslim ‘appearing’, we can see another verse in which the word for ‘Muslim’ is used in the Peshitta Aramaic Text of Luke 6:
ܘܝܗܘܼܕܼܐ ܒܿܪ ܝܥܩܘܼܒܼ܂ ܘܝܗܘܼܕܼܐ ܣܟܼܪܝܘܼܛܐ܂ ܗܘ ܕܿܗܘܐ ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ—Luke 6:16 Peshitta Text
And Judas the son of James, and Judah of Iscariot, who became the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mushlamana   ] —Luke 6:16 Lamsa Translation from Aramaic
 The word is also used in Luke elsewhere at the last Supper:
 ܒܿܪܲܡ ܗܵܐ ܐܼܝܕܼܸܗ   ܕܿܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܝ   ܥܲܠ ܦܿܵܬܼܘܼܪܵܐ—Luke 22:21 Peshitta Text
"But behold, the hand of him who is to betray [ܕܿܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܝ   , domushlaman’ ] me is on the table—Luke 22:21 Lamsa Translation from Aramaic
We see here the Aramaic word for Muslim ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ mushlamana is used in Luke 6 and it means “traitor”—not submission or peace like Muslims claim Muslim means!

If we were to move on the Peshitta text of Matthew's gospel we see the word appear more, with a word that is even closer to Muslim:
ܩܘܼܡܘ܂ ܢܼܐܙܲܠ܂ ܗܵܐ ܡܛܵܐ ܗܲܘ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ ܠܼܝ  ܘܥܲܕܼ ܗܘܼ ܡܡܲܠܸܠ܃ ܗܵܐ ܝܼܗܘܼܕܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ܂--Matthew 26:46-47
 "Arise, let us go; behold he who is to deliver me [ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ , domashlema] has arrived. Whiel he was speaking, behold, Judas the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana ] ......"--Matthew 26:46-47
 The word domashlema--where do--who, which, and mashlema--transfer, hand over [in this case hand over in the sense of betrayal!]. Interestingly enough the domashlema seems to have shlama, or 'peace' or 'wholeness' as its root, similar to what SOME Muslims claim the word Muslim is related to, yet we see here that mashlema here means to BETRAY Jesus.

Now, going back to just the Aramaic word for Muslim--ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana, we see it appearing in Matthew 4 times in: Matthew 26:25, 26:47, 26:48, and 27:3. All of these refer to Judas Iscariot when he BETRAYED Jesus. If we were to go to Mark's Gospel it appears once in Mark 14:44
 ܘܝܲܗ̱ܒܼ ܠܗܘܼܢ ܐܵܬܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ   ܗܲܘ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ܂ ܘܸܐܡܲܪ܂ ܗܲܘ ܕܿܢܵܫܸܩ ܐ̱ܢܵܐ܂ ܗܘܼܝܘܼ܂ ܐܘܼܚܕܿܘܼܗ̱ܝ ܙܗܼܝܪܵܐܝܼܬܼ܂ ܘܲܐܘܒܿܠܘܼܗ̱ܝ--Mark 14:44 Peshitta Text
"And the traitor who was to do the delivering gave them a sign, and he said, He whom I kiss is the one; seize him carefully, and take him away"--Mark 14:44 Lamsa
Finally, St John's Gospel also uses the word ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana twice:
ܝܵܕܼܲܥ ܗ̱ܘܵܐ ܕܸܿܝܢ ܐܵܦܼ ܝܼܗܘܼܕܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ   ܠܕܼܘܼܟܿܬܼܵܐ ܗܵܝ܂ ܡܸܛܽܠ ܕܿܣܲܓܼܿܝ ܙܲܒܼܢܵܐ ܟܿܵܢܸܫ ܗ̱ܘܵܐ ܬܿܲܡܵܢ ܝܸܫܘܼܥ ܥܲܡ ܬܿܲܠܡܼܝܕܼܲܘܗ̱ܝ̈܂--John 18:2 Peshitta Text
 Judah the traitor also knew that place, for Jesus and his disciples frequently gathered there--John 18:2 Lamsa
 ܐܵܡܪܼܝܢ ܠܸܗ܂ ܠܝܸܫܘܼܥ ܢܵܨܪܵܝܵܐ܂ ܐܵܡܲܪ ܠܗܘܼܢ ܝܸܫܘܼܥ܂ ܐܸܢܵܐ ܐ̱ܢܵܐ܂ ܩܵܐܸܡ ܗ̱ܘܵܐ ܕܸܿܝܢ ܐܵܦܼ ܝܼܗܘܼܕܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ   ܥܲܡܗܘܼܢ܂--John 18:5 Peshitta Text
They said to him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said to them, I am he. Judah the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana]  was also standing with them.--John 18:5 Lamsa
 
Though the word mushlamana did not take up the Muslim meaning until the 7th century, the same word was used long before it in Jewish and Christian writings, as we see in this definition:

mšlmn, mšlmnˀ   (mašləmān, mašləmānā)   nom.ag.C  betrayer; perfected
  1. nom. ag. active:  Syr. (a) betrayer  Syr. 3Mac3:24ܘܢܗܘܘܢ ܡܢ ܡܫܠܡ̈ܢܝܢ ܘܒܥܠܕܒܒ̈ܝܢ  they might become some of our betrayers and our enemies.
  2. nom. ag. passive  Syr. (a) perfected one  Palmyrene, CPA, Syr, JBA. JSB1 191:12 ܡܫܠܡܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܥܕܠܐ ܢܚܘܬ  He was perfect before he came down. BT San 7a(25) שבע בירי למשלמאנא וסליק٠ וחדא לדעבד ביש  there are seven pits for the perfect person, and then he arises, but one for the evildoer [cf. Prov. 24:16]. (b) muslim  Syr. BHMQ7 1.3.1 ܠܟܪ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܘܠܝܘ̈ܕܝܐ ܘܠܡܫ̈ܠܡܢܐ  all Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Conclusion: The word for Muslim is used in Aramaic text of the New Testament—and it refers to the one that betrayed the Lord Jesus Christ, Judas Iscariot, the son of perdition! If Muslims wants to be in the New Testament let them be the TRAITORS they are, for the betrayed Christ’s own words of Divinity that He had Glory with His Father before the world was (John 17:3). Furthermore, it is insignificant that translating an old text in Aramaic into modern Hebrew produces a word that resembles Muslim.