ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 7963
Tue, 19-Jul-11 06:35:27
GIDEON MAGE wrote:what type of person am I "professor"?
I have debated with myself long and hard as to whether I ought to respond to this question. Finally, I decided that I should, if only so that it cannot be said that I evaded the question (and also because I demanded an answer to my own question). So here is my response which, I am sure, you will not like:
You are the kind of person who, having dug himself into a hole, lies to get himself out of it rather than simply ceasing excavation.
Why do I say this? In post #29, I gave the definition of the Hebrew term בַּֽעַל־אוֹב ba'al ov provided by the Mishnah (Treatise Sanhedrin 7:7) and you responded in post #30 with
No, seriously! Is there any real documentation on this? First you state over and over again that the Mishnah is commentary, then turn around and quote it as absolute truth....
This was quite clearly intended for me peronally and yet, now that I have finally wrung a reply from you to the question when I had stated even once that “that the Mishnah is commentary” (you had claimed that I had stated this “over and over again”) you now back-pedal and claim that “In the English language, ‘you’ is either singular or plural”. Well, I know that “you” can be either singular or plural in contemporary usage (although this is actually a fairly recent development), but it is clear from the context of the prior correspondence (which is available for all to see) that this is just a transparent excuse and a pretence on your part. You were not speaking generally in the plural, but specifically to me in the singular.
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Posts: 975
Wed, 20-Jul-11 08:34:38
Posts: 970
Wed, 20-Jul-11 08:40:00
Wed, 20-Jul-11 09:50:46
Ezekah wrote:I see Gideon Mage as ducking and dodging instead of simply admitting that he misquoted you (singular: Professor).
That’s exactly what I said, except I was more forthright. And it seems the moderator did not disagree with me, as my reply was released.
Posts: 20703
Wed, 20-Jul-11 10:02:25
Moderator
GIDEON MAGE wroteBut, seriously, no-one is interested in discussing the similarity in the early histories of Robin Hood and You-Know-Who? No-one?
Wed, 20-Jul-11 11:51:16
GIDEON MAGE wrote: I saw a t.v. program the other night about the search for the real Robin Hood. It seems that the original legend started with a song called "A Gest of Robyn Hode", back about a 1300 years after Jesus. Over the following 200 years, there were at least eight criminals called "Robin Hood" or similiar names. There are actual court records of Robyn Hode's trial, still available. The transformation to Robert of Lockley, the Earl of Huntingdon, is fascinating. Gee, this was over ten centuries after you-know-who, and we are not really sure whether there was ever one "Robin Hood", knight or commoner. I see a parallel. Why are the Xians so insistent on a historical savior. THe actual available documents of the N.T. are about 400 years after the fact. We don't have any Roman records of trial for J.C., or, for that matter, Paul of Tarsus. Open for opinions. Shoot me down, with a Golden Arrow?
Posts: 135
Wed, 20-Jul-11 12:16:03
GIDEON MAGE wrote: Why are the Xians so insistent on a historical savior.
Posts: 5945
Thu, 21-Jul-11 11:22:24
Thu, 21-Jul-11 11:56:19
Thu, 21-Jul-11 12:32:32
Thu, 21-Jul-11 13:17:14
As I've posted ...I have no intention of trying to prove a historical Jesus.A historical SAVIOR is a wholly different question.I'm sure not going to try to prove any Jesus was any kind of savior at all.Could easily be legendary, like the legendary Robin Hood — yet based, like Robin Hood, on a 1st century historical figure.That I say such things seems to bother some others around here a lot.
Thu, 21-Jul-11 13:49:22
Fri, 22-Jul-11 06:36:54
In post #50 and again in post #52, Sophiee1 wrote:Isaiah 43:11, "....apart from me there is no savior"
and also (in post #50 alone):Numbers 23:19, "G-d is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind". . .
1. Shouldn’t the quote from Y'shayahu read “apart from Me there is no Saviour”?2. I believe I have dealt with the precise wording of B'midbar 23:19 before, but it was quite a long time ago. There are no relative pronouns “that”, which is represented in Hebrew by the prefix שֶׁ־ followed by a daggesh in the next letter (unless it is a guttural). In Hebrew, it reads
לֹ֣א אִ֥ישׁ אֵל֙ וִֽיכַזֵּ֔בוּבֶן־אָדָ֖ם וְיִתְנֶחָ֑םהַה֤וּא אָמַר֙ וְלֹ֣א יַעֲשֶׂ֔הוְדִבֶּ֖ר וְלֹ֥א יְקִימֶֽנָּה׃
which translates literally as “God is not a man and He lies, and a human being and He changes His Mind”, but this is clearly absurd and, as the second half of the verse contains an explicit rhetorical question, it makes sense to translate the first half, too, as a pair of rhetorical questions:
“God is not a man—will He ever lie?and [neither is He] a human being—will He ever change His Mind?Does He ever say [something] and not do [it],or speak and not perform it?”
Fri, 22-Jul-11 08:32:29
Proteus wrote: As I've posted ...I have no intention of trying to prove a historical Jesus.A historical SAVIOR is a wholly different question.
As I've posted ...I have no intention of trying to prove a historical Jesus.A historical SAVIOR is a wholly different question.
Posts: 499
Fri, 22-Jul-11 09:41:11
Fri, 22-Jul-11 09:53:55
Seems to me you don't necessarily speak for all participants, on some of these points.
Fri, 22-Jul-11 10:20:48
Fri, 22-Jul-11 10:31:59
Fri, 22-Jul-11 10:49:56
weboh wrote:It looks more like the BLB says "saviour" is a "Hiphil" Participle (no tense given). Do participles have tenses in Hebrew?
מוֹשִֽׁיעַ is technically the present participle “rescuing”, but standing in place of the verbal noun “rescuer”; I strongly dislike the use of “saver” or “saviour” because that have such a “loaded” meaning—Rav Scherman uses “deliverer” in ArtScroll’s “Stone Edition” T'nach (Hebrew does not have any particiles other than present participles). One should not read too much into the fact that it is a הִפְעִיל inflection and the sense is in no way “causative”.My apologies for the terseness of this post, but I have less than 15 minutes before Shabbat is due to begin.
Fri, 22-Jul-11 13:42:24
Proteus wrote:Whether or not the Jesus figure of the GT is based on a historical figure is a wholly different question from whether or not the historical original ever saved anyone from, to or for anything. Offhand I don't recall ever saying here that Jesus is a savior.d become myth."
Share This