OK, now, let's look at the facts about the kiddo from Nazzareth:
Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum
1:16: "Iacob autem genuit Ioseph virum Mariae, de qua natus est Iesus qui vocatur Christus."
Translation: "Jacob also created (was the father of) Joseph, husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jeses who is called Christ."
Now, if Jesus was the messiah, he would have to be the son of David, right? And David must be 100% paterally his father. So what does Apostle Mattheu have to say?
Excuse me but this Latin is too advanced for me, so I'll translate the Hebrew into English:
"And Mary was married to Joseph; and before he came to her, she was pregnant to the Holy Spirit."
Which CLEARLY implies that he was either David's son, or God's son. And frankly, I believe that he was neither God's son (Holy Spirit raping a virgin? I don't think so!), nor David's son (probably John did something that night).
Moreover, Matthew 1:18 said "Ecce virgo in utero habebit et pariet filium, et vocabunt nomen eius Emmanuel", if you'd like to translate it correctly, try replacing "virgo" with "puella" = maiden.
Jonny
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You are not all that bright, are you?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
He tries to be. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't make any sense at all.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Huh? When you say David, do you mean Joseph? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cough* Well, dunno if this is the first (or just one of many) Hatrack threads about this, but there are hundreds and hundreds of discussions on this topic on the Net alone.
Jonny, if you're going to be clever/insulting/scholarly (or whatever it is you were going for here), at least try to be original, hmm?
Not to mention clear . . .
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Is there some point that's trying to be made here?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That secondary education in this day and age is sorely lacking....
Posted by Lucky4 (Member # 1420) on :
Thought this was going to be something about an Indiana-Rhode Island get together, and was scratching my head thinking, wow, do they border?!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what? Posting a thread with an acronym that is at the very heart of someone's religion and adding Lol after it might not be the best way to win friends and influence people. Referring to that same religion's Savior as "kiddo" isn't that nice, either. Your description of Jesus' conception as the "Holy Spirit raping a virgin" is even more offensive.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And another note – quite a few Christians actually read Latin and Hebrew, and have studied the translation issues involved for longer than you’ve been alive. So the condescending attitude is probably not warranted.
(She says, in her most codescending tone, fully apreciating the irony. )
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
And if you're REALLY trying, then take a look at the Koine Greek NT from the Septuagint, and try and find the Aramaic basis of THAT.
*waits*
Somehow, I think my professors have a slightly more informed grasp.
I think. But what do I know?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Good point. Why are you working from the Latin translation in the first place?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought that "Septuagint" only referred to the Greek translation of the Old Testament (including the books Catholics consider part of it that Protestants don't).
Am I misremembering, Dana?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I guess this post was a mistake.
quote: Why are you working from the Latin translation in the first place?
Latin is (sadly) the officially 'accurate' language for the New Testament, rather than Greek or Aramaic.
[ January 06, 2005, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, Latin is not. The NT was written in Greek. The words spoken in the Gospels were originally said in Aramaic (I believe).
What you need to understand is that this issue is at the heart of our Faith. It's not necessarily out of line to post historical questions or reasons why it's not correct, but to do so in a flippant and disrespectful manner is rude.
Dagonee
[ January 06, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I know, I overdid it, my intentions were good though.
My sincere apologies.
EDIT:
I know that the Aramaic was the origin, and that it was probably lost; thus Greek is the oldest version. But Latin is tha language that counts if a problem arises in the translations. That's what the Vatican recognises as the most accurate, for some unusual reason or another.
[ January 06, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yeah, Dag, you're right. The Septuagint is the greek translation of the OT and then there's the NT greek.
Jonathan, really? Can you link me to the documentation on that? I'm curious.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, you're not misremembering Dag. But the Greek NT quotes the OT frequently, so the Septuagint becomes important for translation issues.
When you're banging your head over why the gospel writers would mis-quote Isaiah, it helps to know what version they might have been reading.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right, that makes sense. Thanks!
[ January 06, 2005, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jonathan, I'd be interested to hear more what you mean by Latin being recognized by the Vatican as the most accurate.
1.) At least some in the Church consider (or considered when they lived) St. Jerome's 4th century translation to Latin to be the most accurate, and to be closer to the original even than many copies of the Greek and Hebrew text. ("Richard Bentley, the great scholar, as long ago as 1716, saw the importance of St. Jerome's translation. "'Twas plain to me," he writes, "that when that copy came first from that great Father's hand, it must agree exactly with the most authentic Greek exemplars; and if now it could be retrieved, it would be the best text and voucher for the true reading out of several pretended ones.")
2.) No recoverable copy of St. Jerome's Vulgate is available, so whatever the excellence of the translation, it is lost to us. ("No copy of the actual text is known to exist; and the corruptions introduced by scribes, etc., in the centuries posterior to St. Jerome, and even the well intentioned work of the various correctors, have rendered the labours of trying to recover the exact text from existing MSS. both diffiuclt and delicate.")
3.) Even the faithfulness of that translation is not taken with no reservation. ("Of course it is altogether another matter to determine how far St. Jerome was correct in his translation: to settle this will no doubt be the work of some future commission.")
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: OK, now, let's look at the facts about the kiddo from Nazzareth
Just so you know, your purposely irreverent attitude makes it so that I am not interested in the slightest in discussing Christ with you. Everybody obviously doesn't feel the same way but that is my reaction.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Thanks dag Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Can you link me to the documentation on that?
I heard it from a Catholic reverend.
The word in Hebrew is "עלמה", meaning maiden. That, in Aramaic, was referred to as "עולמתא" (according to Targum Yonatan ben Uziel) - the same root, the same meaning. Greek, however, translated it as "parthenos", meaning either a maiden or a virgin. That as interpreted as "virgin" (virgo) in Latin.
EDIT:
quote: I am not interested in the slightest in discussing Christ with you.
quote: I know, I overdid it, my intentions were good though.
[ January 06, 2005, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: The word in Hebrew is "עלמה", meaning maiden. That, in Aramaic, was referred to as "עולמתא" (according to Targum Yonatan ben Uziel) - the same root, the same meaning. Greek, however, translated it as "parthenos", meaning either a maiden or a virgin. That as interpreted as "virgin" (virgo) in Latin.
Yeah, we got that Jonathan. The thing is, most of us knew it already. This is, what, the third thread in which you’ve pointed out that Isaiah said “maiden,” not “virgin”? Maybe you’d do better to ask some Christians how they interpret that particular scripture, rather than expecting us to slap our foreheads and say, “Wow, why did we never notice that before?!?”
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I know, I overdid it, my intentions were good though.
Which is neither an apology for nor an edition of what you posted previously.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Maybe you’d do better to ask some Christians how they interpret that particular scripture...
What better place to ask that do I have rather than Hatrack?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Note the difference in the two approaches being discussed:
"Lol. Christians are so dumb. How could they possible think X?"
"Here are some interesting linguistic issues that seem to affect Christian belief. Would any believers be willing to explain how these issues have been accounted for in your faith?"
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If you were intending to ask something, you did a rather poor job of it.
It looked to me like you were just telling us we are wrong. And laughably wrong, at that.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I apologised, I said I was wrong in my approach, and I did not mean to ridicule Christianity, despite what I wrote. I said that, what else could I possibly do to make myself seem less like a pathetic, self-centred, immature and an idioticlaly foolish, teen-aged imbecile?
[ January 06, 2005, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Which is neither an apology for nor an edition of what you posted previously.
I was wrong. I missed where you did. I aplogozie as well.
The Spice must flow!
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Thank you. "The Spice"?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Why don't you start by telling us what you'd like to discuss?
I've been shying away from theological discussions lately, just because there are so many different flavors of Christian theology represented here that it gets confusing. (Not to mention frustrating, when you've been trying to distinguish a particular belief, and then a fellow Christian gives an example that perfectly illuminates the exact opposite of what you were trying to say.) But I could make an exception for a non-pathetic, discussion-centred, mature, idioticly foolish, teen-aged imbecile. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
My interests? Hmmm... A little of everything. Philosophy; theology; psycoticis..., *ahem*, psychology; language; humour; Books, Films and American Culture (well, up to a point); mathematics; physics; etc, etc, etc...
A bit of it all... Jonny
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote:my intentions were good though.
I'm still trying to figure out what your intention was.
But I can't have a serious discussion about religion with someone who hasn't even read Dune
[ January 06, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You'll get there.
I'm leaving for a bit, but I'll try to type up something on topic this afternoon.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of the Immaculate Conception and rape : If I recall correctly, Mary is told by Gabriel that she shall conceive a child. There is no question of asking her to conceive a child. That's not very nice, is it? In fact, if a human male selected someone to bear his son, and impregnated her without her explicit consent, it most certainly would be rape. Or am I mistaken about Mary's consent?
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I think she says "behold the handmaiden of the Lord, be it unto me as thou has said."
P.S. Close: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word" King James Version
[ January 06, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus' conception.
Second, from the Gospel of Luke:
quote:1:26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 1:27to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 1:28And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. 1:29But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. 1:30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 1:31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 1:32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 1:33and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 1:34And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 1:35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. 1:36And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that was called barren. 1:37For no word from God shall be void of power. 1:38And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. (emphasis added)
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sounds like it was consentual to me. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, as it is written, I suppose. Although you could put some differing interpretations on it if you liked. For example, I note that this was written considerable time after the events in question, and not by Mary herself. Who knows what she might have had to say? And second, I suppose many slaves might have said "Yes Massa, I bending over right now" without the sex being regarded as consensual.
I stand corrected about the Immaculate Conception.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could you at least pretend to have some respect for the beliefs of others?
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It is posts like those last to posts of yours, KoM, that make me more likely to skip over anything you say.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, Dag. I did not assert that this was the case. I admit I suggested that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, but that is not the same as disrespecting your beliefs; I surely am not required to act as though I believed them myself?
As for the slavery analogy, you yourself have stated that your religion requires absolute submission to the will of another. And to me at least, it looks as though there is the threat of force, ie Hell. If for a moment you grant that premise, just how is it different from slavery?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not just the analogy, it's the crude language with respect to what Christians consider one of the pivotal events in the world.
As to the analogy, you reject all the other elements of our faith that make this as different from slavery as night is from day, so there's no way to respond without relying on premises you don't accept.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*loves Dagonee*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Do you mind elaborating on the other premises, then? I take it you agree that, as I have presented it, this submission is indeed slavery.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
C.S. Lewis did it far more eloquently than I, both in Mere Christianity and in Perelandra.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I find it interesting that a poster who chose King of Men as his ID is saying submission or slavery is in some way bad. Or have I misread that as well?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:First, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus' conception.
I'm not sure I understand this. Or, more accurately, I'm pretty sure I don't understand this. What exactly is the Immaculate Conception?
Edit: Ah. Linky. Didn't know that before. It's not hard to understand the confusion, though.
[ January 06, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, come on, Trisha. You do know what a joke is, right? And in the second place, I chose that name for a gaming forum originally. Among Napoleons, Blitzkriegs, and Panzer88s, it is not so out of place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand this. Or, more accurately, I'm pretty sure I don't understand this. What exactly is the Immaculate Conception?
The doctrine held by the Catholic Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
[ January 06, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Going off on a tangent,
quote:The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation (...)
Does any Papal bull or other doctrine state that the soul is created at the moment the sperm cell penetrates the egg? If at some later point, presumably abortion is not murder until that happens.
[ January 06, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The page you're linking to is blocked by my work, Dag, so I can't check it to see if this question is answered. If so, just let me know and I'll read it when I get home tonight. If not, tell me--what are the practical implications of being free of original sin? How would Mary's day to day experience of life be different from that of a normal, tainted person?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Does any Papal bull...
Why do you intentionally go out of your way to mock other's beliefs and treat them with no respect? Are you just trolling here? If so, please move on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know the answer to that, Noemon.
quote:Why do you intentionally go out of your way to mock other's beliefs and treat them with no respect? Are you just trolling here? If so, please move on.
Belle, "bull" is actually the name of a particular type of document issued by the Pope. He wasn't being insulting this time. "For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be 'an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal,' to which one may add that in its superscription the pope invariably takes the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei."
Dagonee
[ January 06, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Ack!
I'm embarrassed, I did not know that term.
My apologies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Er, what did I say that time? I certainly wasn't trolling, I thought I was quite politely asking for clarification on a point of Catholic doctrine.
Edit : Gah, too slow.
[ January 06, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the idiom, but "bull" is often used here as short for "bullsh*&." I think Belle thought you were using the term in that manner.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There once was a boy who cried wolf...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I see. How, um, fraught with potential for confusion. Anyway, no problem, Belle.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
:looks at own screen name: :looks at King of Men: Yeah, whatever.
Dagonee, I'm going to start another thread about the fall/Original Sin.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd never really thought about it either until I was reading this thread. It was one of those things I'd always been aware of, but had never considered the implications of. Dana, can you shed any light on this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, KoM, the Immaculate Conception doctrine implicitly holds that belief that the soul enters at the time of conception. I don't know where the doctrine was first explicitly promulgated.
Dagonee
[ January 06, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine, so anything I say will be academic rather than personal belief, (and most of my RC doctrinal education is pre-reformation), but I can give it a whirl. One of the effects of original sin is that it makes all humans prone to sin. Augustine postulated that after the fall humans were no longer able not to sin (non posse non peccare). So, one of the effects should be that Mary would be less prone to, and theoretically able to avoid completely, actual sin during her lifetime.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On a total tangent, where does the word 'bull' for Papal communications come from, anyway? Any relation to 'bulletin'?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A bulla was originally a circular plate or boss of metal, so called from its resemblance in form to a bubble floating upon water (Lat. bullire, to boil). In the course of time the term came to be applied to the leaden seals with which papal and royal documents were authenticated in the early Middle Ages, and by a further development, the name, from designating the seal, was eventually attached to the document itself.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I see, most interesting. Seems the thread has come full circle 'round to etymology again.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The page you're linking to is blocked by my work, Dag, so I can't check it to see if this question is answered. If so, just let me know and I'll read it when I get home tonight. If not, tell me--what are the practical implications of being free of original sin? How would Mary's day to day experience of life be different from that of a normal, tainted person?
The doctrine explicitly holds that she was still subject to the physical consequences of the Fall.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine, so anything I say will be academic rather than personal belief, (and most of my RC doctrinal education is pre-reformation), but I can give it a whirl.
Sure, a whirl was all I was going for. Interesting whirl, by the way!
quote:The doctrine explicitly holds that she was still subject to the physical consequences of the Fall.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)