On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 Nick Maclaren wrote:

| 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?

Well, I have never heard THAT before! All of the references I have
seen give New Testament Aramaic and Old Testament Hebrew the sort of
relationship that modern German and Old Norse have. I.e. a sort of
avuncular relationship, not even a direct one - let alone calling
Aramaic merely a dialect of Hebrew!

"Son"/"sohn" means "son" in both German and Old Norse.

But that was just the point I was making, Nick. "Bar" means "son of" in
both Aramaic and Hebrew. It was Bluebell that said that, 'The term bar
nasha does not actually mean " Son of man" it means " I think " " this
one thinks" in the normal parlance of the language.'

David
--
David Rance http://www.mesnil.demon.co.uk
Fido Address: 2:252/110 writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

"graham" wrote in message
news:3_IYh.140654$aG1.72552@pd7urf3no...




So how is it that you missed out on elementary English composition and
spelling?

Typing errors mostly and I did apologise if you look back. I am quite aware
of the errors. I also have swollen hands at the moment ( an allergic
reaction to sap from a plant I stupidly touched) and cant hit the keys on
target.

I type very fast and rarely check ( and my spell checker isnt working on
this sytem at the moment anyway) . You will find loads of people with top
class brains and apparent issues with English composition. Being good at
English often seems to correlate with very little else except being good at
English. Also in top class writers ( including Shakespere) spelling is
inversely correlated to ability and thought and ideas.

English is also a second language for me , not as I want to put that in as
an excuse.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:

| 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.

Hmm, a degree and doctorate in Theology and a degree in Botany. Not
impossible, I suppose, but are there any other disciplines in which you
have a qualification before we (or, rather, I) put my foot in it!?

Well, you outrank me in qualification and is, no doubt, more recent. I
shall need to consult with my daughter who got a masters in Theology
only ten years ago. Maybe theology teaching has changed in the last
fifty years!

Out of interest, what was the subject of the thesis for your doctorate?

David

--
David Rance http://www.mesnil.demon.co.uk
Fido Address: 2:252/110 writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

"David Rance" wrote in message
...


Out of interest, what was the subject of the thesis for your doctorate?

David



"Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance" and variations of a
message and how it is handed down over the years.

Mike


--
.................................................. ..............
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

In article ,
David Rance writes:
| On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 Nick Maclaren wrote:
|
| | 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?
|
| Well, I have never heard THAT before! All of the references I have
| seen give New Testament Aramaic and Old Testament Hebrew the sort of
| relationship that modern German and Old Norse have. I.e. a sort of
| avuncular relationship, not even a direct one - let alone calling
| Aramaic merely a dialect of Hebrew!
|
| "Son"/"sohn" means "son" in both German and Old Norse.
|
| But that was just the point I was making, Nick. "Bar" means "son of" in
| both Aramaic and Hebrew. It was Bluebell that said that, 'The term bar
| nasha does not actually mean " Son of man" it means " I think " " this
| one thinks" in the normal parlance of the language.'

My knowledge of Hebrew is minimal, and mine of Aramaic is less, so
I can't say one way or the other. But your statement that Aramaic
is only a dialect of Hebrew is wrong, as is your assumption that
"bar nasha" necessarily means the same in the two languages.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"David Rance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:

| 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.

Hmm, a degree and doctorate in Theology and a degree in Botany. Not
impossible, I suppose, but are there any other disciplines in which you
have a qualification before we (or, rather, I) put my foot in it!?

Its not " impossible" or even improbable, especially post 1980's. I know
folks who have degrees in several areas , more than I have.

I have a degree in Botany ( taken when I was a youngster). That was a
chosen career path when I started out.
I did some research and even worked up to M. Phil at one point but lost
interest really but bagged the masters - and got a life.

I used to attend theology/philosophy lectures when I got the chance ( ie
didnt cross my own lectures and in the university anything is open to anyone
if you are a student or staff) . Then the chance came to do a theology
degree ( I was considering ordination at the time;-)). I was already
working at Trinity and so it was relatively easy to complete another degree
there. The Ph.D came later as I got into a particular specialism. No big
deal on all that.

Other degrees - well all this CPD in education now and I ended up with an
M.Ed recently , and yes, I do have another degree but I dont usually
mention that one, it confuses people, especially with the M.Ed as well.
!

Out of interest, what was the subject of the thesis for your doctorate?

Relationships, and in my case working toward a theology of cohabitation.
Thats where I got interested in language interpretations and culture in the
Bible. In order to establish a theology for cohabitation ( as oposed to
marriage but could include marriage) I had to deal with the language of
relationships that has been used in the Bible , OT and NT. and interpret
that for a modern age if you like.

Thing is, all of that which 15/ 20 years ago was revolutionary and cutting
edge is now accepted by the church and the seal was the C of E's report on
the family back in the early 1990's ( and I am in there ;-), so I quietly
went back to my plants.

All somewhat off topic now I fear. I have to go and strim my banks - a job I
started but will finish with difficulty now , and feed my tomatoes before
putting them to bed ;-)

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

Its not " impossible" or even improbable, especially post 1980's. I know
folks who have degrees in several areas , more than I have.

I have a degree in Botany ( taken when I was a youngster). That was a
chosen career path when I started out.
I did some research and even worked up to M. Phil at one point but lost
interest really but bagged the masters - and got a life.

I used to attend theology/philosophy lectures when I got the chance ( ie
didnt cross my own lectures and in the university anything is open to
anyone if you are a student or staff) . Then the chance came to do a
theology degree ( I was considering ordination at the time;-)). I was
already working at Trinity and so it was relatively easy to complete
another degree there. The Ph.D came later as I got into a particular
specialism. No big deal on all that.

Other degrees - well all this CPD in education now and I ended up with an
M.Ed recently , and yes, I do have another degree but I dont usually
mention that one, it confuses people, especially with the M.Ed as well.
!

Out of interest, what was the subject of the thesis for your doctorate?

Relationships, and in my case working toward a theology of
cohabitation.
Thats where I got interested in language interpretations and culture in
the Bible. In order to establish a theology for cohabitation ( as oposed
to marriage but could include marriage) I had to deal with the language of
relationships that has been used in the Bible , OT and NT. and interpret
that for a modern age if you like.

Thing is, all of that which 15/ 20 years ago was revolutionary and cutting
edge is now accepted by the church and the seal was the C of E's report
on the family back in the early 1990's ( and I am in there ;-), so I
quietly went back to my plants.

All somewhat off topic now I fear. I have to go and strim my banks - a job
I started but will finish with difficulty now , and feed my tomatoes
before putting them to bed ;-)



Other than that, you're a bit of a waster! ;-) ;-)

Mike


--
.................................................. ..............
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"bluebell" wrote in message
...




Other than that, you're a bit of a waster! ;-) ;-)

Most certainly.

On Apr 27, 10:38 pm, David Rance
They do. Have you never seen the Almanach du facteur which lists a saint
for every day that is not a feast day.

No I haven't seen that.

And from year to year there are
slight changes. I do well out of that because my French saint's day is
the 29th December and my English one is the 1st March.

Do I have 2 Saints days with my name??

On Apr 27, 10:51 pm, K wrote:
" writes



On Apr 27, 8:42 am, David Rance
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 wrote:

Does anyone know of any plants, shrubs etc. that are mentioned in
the bible
or the gospel that are available in the UK for purchase ?

Was Daphne a Saint?

No. Not in the Bible anyway.

David

Well David, I'm not in the Bible, but I'm a Saint, I even have a day
named after me.

Your namesake is in the Bible, though -
"The Old Testament story of the widow Judith - the siren who lured her
people's deadly enemy, Holofernes, to his death, beheading him in his
own bed to save Jerusalem - is an enduring cultural myth in Western
society."


I like that Kay, a bit like me then, the siren thing, I mean?

Judith

On Apr 27, 10:35 pm, David Rance
wrote:

Actually you *are* in the Bible if you accept that the books of the
Apocrypha are part of Scripture. There is a book of Judith in the
Apocrypha.


I accept the books of everyone, I like to hedge my bets, now where did
I put the Koran?

Judith

On Apr 28, 4:00 pm, "bluebell" wrote:
English is also a second language for me , not as I want to put that in as
an excuse.

Hello Bluebell, welcome to urg. I am fascinated with your academic
background and particularly as English is not your first language.
Out of interest, do you teach now and if so what?

Judith

On Apr 28, 5:06 pm, Martin wrote:

The Catholic list seems to be all Johns and no Judiths
--


It's just not fair, I am always missing out.

Judith (what about my second name Charlotte? Is she a saint?)

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 28, 5:06 pm, Martin wrote:

The Catholic list seems to be all Johns and no Judiths
--


It's just not fair, I am always missing out.

Judith (what about my second name Charlotte? Is she a saint?)


Nearest we can get there is St Crispin ;-)

May be above the heads of some of the plebs on here :-((

Mike


--
.................................................. ..............
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

In article ,
"bluebell" writes:
|
| 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.

That's not quite true. There is significant evidence that at least
some of his followers believed that he was the Messiah, not least
because he was crucified and not stoned.

And, returning to plants, there are some that we shall never be able
to identify - indeed, the names might well have been generic, not
specific - but there are others that are pretty clear from the
context. It is, however, effectively certain that Rose of Sharon
was NOT a Hebe, no matter what it was - Hebes are southern hemisphere
plants.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.