posted
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.
posted
*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 . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought this was going to be something about an Indiana-Rhode Island get together, and was scratching my head thinking, wow, do they border?!
Posts: 186 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. )
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.")
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?!?”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is posts like those last to posts of yours, KoM, that make me more likely to skip over anything you say.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
