"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
David Rance writes:
|
| Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly
not
| mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a
separate
| language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What
branch
| of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

I am sorry, but its ABSOLUTELY mainstream theology. I did my degree and
Ph.D in theology at Trinity College Cambridge and its very mainstream
interpretation.

Within the Aramaic dialelect bar nasha ( which you are quite correct "
bar "does mean son in Hebrew) is used to mean I think or this one thinks.
ie the son of man thinks ( ie I think , or this one thinks , or methinks
even to use old English)



Oh dear :-((

Aggression rears its ugly head in uk.rec.gardening ONCE again :-((

This time over Fairy Stories. Have a go at Cinderella or Snow White.

:-((

I am not sure what you mean by " fairy story. Care to ellaborate? I am just
discussing Language usage first century Palastine.

On the other hand if you are refering to the idea that a person called Jesus
did not exist and so thats a fairy story ?( Ive heard this one a lot
recently. Mostly amongst kids in schools being fed the line by atheistic RE
teachers who neither know their theology nor understand the nature of faith
.. It was an argument shoved forward back in the 1920's and then the 60's
last, and I thought it had been well established that the line of thought
did not have sufficient strength to sustain it)

That said. I have no axe to grind because I just taking an academic line on
the Bible here. But I think you could cause offense to many.

I think you will find most mainstream philosophers / theologians ( including
atheist ones these days!) and archeologists accept a person called Jesus ,
probably an itinerant preacher ( there were many such in first century
Palastine) , Jewish ( Jewish authjorities dont deny it) and aramaic speaking
did exist and was cricified. He was not a made up figure or fairy tale He
was not some conglomerate of many figures.

Beyond that is conjecture and belief. ( ie whas he the long awaited
Messiah of Judaism or a prophet ( as Islam believes) or the Son of God in
Christian faith is neither here nor there is what I am suggesting.

To suggest that this figure was a fairy tale is highly offensive, not just
to those who may believe in Christianity but also to scholars in the Jewish
tradition and to members of the Islamic community.


As for aggression in this forum . I would agree with that comment.