"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)

"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.

:-((

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
...

"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.

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

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.

Snip
From previous post:
"By the way, I also have qualifications ( like a degree) in botany and in
horticulture to level 4."


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



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.

:-((


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.

Ask, and it shall be given!

"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 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

In message , bluebell
writes

"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)


If one looks at where the phrase "son of man" is used in the Bible (see
URL:http://www.google.com/search?num=100...all&q=%22Son+o
f+man%22+site%3Abible.org%2Fverse.php) one finds that your suggested
idiomatic translation of the phrase doesn't fit in many of verses in
which it is used.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

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

"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 Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:

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.

Fascinating, and I would like to take this further but I fear that this
is not the place. I'm not sure we will agree on many things but that is
the joy of debate. :-)
I'll have to ask my daughter if she has a copy of this report.

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 ;-)

And I'm afraid my attention has been somewhat disjointed as I have been
demolishing a privet hedge this afternoon (my word, it has made a lot of
compost!). But in this thread, perhaps you have let slip a possible
reason for misunderstanding Stewart's intentions and that is that
English is not your first language. Believe me, I could see nothing
offensive in what he wrote and I don't think anyone else could either.
He did seem genuinely trying to be helpful. In your own culture, or in
the cultures you have studied, maybe it seemed a bit abrupt but for us
English in the 21st century it was quite normal.

David

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