Re: Don't forget to send your favorites!

On Nov 1, 2:00*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
>
> You misunderstand what I said. *Because a woman has an in-vitro fert.,
> that does not mean she's a virgin. *In fact it's extremely unlikely that
> a virgin would be approved for IVF.

Everybody knows that the aliens have a way of impregnating people
through the butt. I know this because an alien told me so. At least,
I think he was an alien.

Annika1980

"J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Wilba wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew
>>> and Luke said so.
>>> We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
>>> they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
>>> team of whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time
>>> or whether Joseph
>>> complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
>>> pregnant
>>> anyway or what.
>>
>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>> mutated through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct
>> translation would be "lass" - simply a young woman.
>
> Interesting that a major article of Catholic dogma could stem from a
> translation error. If that is the case then somebody screwed the pooch
> royally.


Even worse (arguably) was when they mistook "celebrate" for "celibate".
A shame.
I like the idea of a whole bunch of happy, celebrating priests.
Instead of what there is.

--
Jeff R.

Jeff R.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:46:30 +0800, "Wilba"
<> wrote:

>J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
>> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
>> so.
>> We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
>> personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
>> Joseph
>> complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
>> pregnant
>> anyway or what.
>
>It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has mutated
>through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would be
>"lass" - simply a young woman.
>
A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.



Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens

J. Clarke wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-11-01 11:00:20 -0800, Alan Browne
>> <> said:
>>
>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2009-11-01 07:13:14 -0800, Alan Browne
>>>> <> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-10-31 15:43:57 -0700, "Jeff R." <> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news: ...
>>>>>>>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yet even that -parthenogenesis- is conceivably ( sorry -
>>>>>>>>> ) one of the easist to believe and, maybe, more likely of the
>>>>>>>>> necessary beliefs.
>>>>>>>> Surely. But in the time since it would likely have occurred
>>>>>>>> numerous times. Has it?
>>>>>>> I think so.
>>>>>>> I *cannot* believe that some of the mothers I see with kids in
>>>>>>> tow have *ever* had sex.
>>>>>> Some of them didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitro_fertilization
>>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't obviate sex.
>>>> It does if you use the cruder definition of sex as actual coitus, as
>>>> opposed to fertilization and cell division. Especially since the
>>>> female in this case wouldn't even have to meet the sperm donor, let
>>>> alone be intimate.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt many men would call invitro, without penetration, sex.
>>>> Let's see you sit back and be gratified by that?
>>> You misunderstand what I said. Because a woman has an in-vitro
>>> fert., that does not mean she's a virgin. In fact it's extremely
>>> unlikely that a virgin would be approved for IVF.
>>>
>>> Further, your reply cur around the definition of parthenogenesis
>>> which is essentially "self reproduction". IVF is definitely not
>>> parthenogenesis.
>> OK! OK! I did think we were talking "human" mothers in this humorous
>> sidetrack, not those life forms for which parthenogenesis is a valid
>> form of reproduction.
>>
>> The bottom line is "virgin" birth as proposed in the New Testament
>> remains fiction, and for humans is a myth.
>
> Yep. Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said so.
> We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
> personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether Joseph
> complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got pregnant
> anyway or what.

I know that if I'd been Joseph, I would've dumped the bitch.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

Wilba wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
>> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
>> so.
>> We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether they
>> personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
>> Joseph
>> complained to them incessantly about how she never put out and got
>> pregnant
>> anyway or what.
>
> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has mutated
> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would be
> "lass" - simply a young woman.

An even more idiomatic translation would be 'maiden', which can mean
either young lady, or virgin.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

Savageduck wrote:
> Eric Stevens said:
>> Wilba wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
>>>> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
>>>> so. We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
>>>> they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
>>>> team of
>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
>>>> Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never put out
>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>
>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>> mutated
>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would
>>> be
>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>
>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
>> in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>
> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore there is
> no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages in most use in
> Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language of JC and his motley
> crew.
> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of the
> myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.

According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the Aramaic
scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no Aramaic texts
exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek based on what was
heard in Aramaic.

Wilba

Wilba wrote:
> Savageduck wrote:
>> Eric Stevens said:
>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity
>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never
>>>>> put out
>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>
>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>>> mutated
>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
>>>> would be
>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>
>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>
>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages
>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language
>> of JC and his motley crew.
>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>
> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no
> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek
> based on what was heard in Aramaic.

Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were
verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of the
New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never know
how much revisionism existed.

However if Neil Douglas-Klotz is an "Aramaic scholar" and he holds that
Aramaic was never written then he blew his credibility, as it is fairly well
known that Aramaic writing dates to around 1000BC and Hebrew writing is
generally considered to be derived from Aramaic writing. Now, it may be
true that no Aramaic writings of any of the Disciples are known to exist but
that is another issue entirely.

J. Clarke

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 05:42:39 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-11-02 04:46:14 -0800, "Wilba" <> said:
>
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens said:
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was determined
>>>>>> that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that Matthew and Luke said
>>>>>> so. We don't know if she told them or whether God told them or whether
>>>>>> they personally put a chastity belt on her or if they had it from a
>>>>>> team of
>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or whether
>>>>>> Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never put out
>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>>>> mutated
>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation would
>>>>> be
>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>
>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was written
>>>> in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>
>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore there is
>>> no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages in most use in
>>> Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language of JC and his motley
>>> crew.
>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of the
>>> myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>>
>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the Aramaic
>> scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no Aramaic texts
>> exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek based on what was
>> heard in Aramaic.
>
>It appears that even scholars have personal agenda. It seems there were
>Aramaic writings which pre and post dated the ...er "time of JC".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic
>
>What remains, regardless of the original language of the odd public
>relations & sales documents which became the New Testament, is the
>creation of a mythical hero on the same scale as a Hercules, Superman
>or Luke Skywalker.
>
>It would have been so much better if they had just documented the man's
>philosophy and life, rather than this fictional attempt to go the
>messiah route, and then to deify him.

Because true religion depends on it being based on something that man
cannot accomplish. By "true religion", I mean a religion that people
will accept unconditionally and not "true" in the sense of being
accurate.

You could not make people accept and adhere to a philosophy based on
ordinary events that any person could put into place. There have been
many men over time that have presented admirable philosophical
teachings and have built up small - relatively - followings, but true
religion depends on a story that provides answers that the common man
cannot solve and a set of standards that man cannot completely meet.

The very presence of Earth and man on Earth is unexplainable to the
common man without the story of creation as presented in the various
religious beliefs. You can talk about the Big Bang and evolution and
attempt to explain it, but most of us cannot process this information
with complete confidence.

Even though the evolution of man is documented scientifically, most of
us accept the scientific theories on faith. We really don't
understand the concept completely, but we accept it as true. The
religious person is doing the same thing, but accepting a different
version on faith.

I am a believer in a need for a true religion, but not any particular
true religion. I am personally an atheist, but I see the need and the
rewards that some people get from a strong religious belief system.
(And also the evils) I believe in that scientific version of
evolution, but damned if I can really grasp how that first spark of
life started.

>Why is man so gullible in his need for a god to explain things?

"Gullible" is really not the word that describes the acceptance of a
god or gods. "Gullible" means "easily duped or cheated". The
acceptance of a god or gods is a much deeper response based on the
need to have what is to them a logical explanation of that which they
cannot understand. I hate to see strong religious beliefs put on the
same level as believing that some crooked Nigerian bank officer is
willing to give you $10 million.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper

J. Clarke <> wrote:
>Wilba wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens said:
>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity
>>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never
>>>>>> put out
>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>>>> mutated
>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
>>>>> would be
>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>
>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>
>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages
>>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language
>>> of JC and his motley crew.
>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
>>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>>
>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no
>> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek
>> based on what was heard in Aramaic.
>
>Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were
>verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of the
>New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never know
>how much revisionism existed.

Shrug. The early church would have re-written the text anyway and
then destroyed the originals.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-02 10:17:33 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> J. Clarke <> wrote:
>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> Eric Stevens said:
>>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note that the Bible is silent on the question of how it was
>>>>>>>> determined that Mary was a virgin. All that we have is that
>>>>>>>> Matthew and Luke said so. We don't know if she told them or
>>>>>>>> whether God told them or whether they personally put a chastity
>>>>>>>> belt on her or if they had it from a team of
>>>>>>>> whatever passed for OB/GYNs in the middle east of the time or
>>>>>>>> whether Joseph complained to them incessantly about how she never
>>>>>>>> put out
>>>>>>>> and got pregnant anyway or what.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a translation error. The Aramaic word used to describe her has
>>>>>>> mutated
>>>>>>> through several steps into "virgin", but a good direct translation
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> "lass" - simply a young woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A problem with that explanation is that the new testament was
>>>>>> written in Greek. mary does not figure in the old testament.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody has said anything about the Old Testament here, therefore
>>>>> there is no problem. Aramaic along with Hebrew were the languages
>>>>> in most use in Judea, and Aramaic was in all likelihood the language
>>>>> of JC and his motley crew.
>>>>> If as alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke & John were the authors of much of
>>>>> the myth they would have written the original drafts in Aramaic.
>>>>
>>>> According to my memory of the seminar I attended, presented by the
>>>> Aramaic scholar Neil Douglas-Klotz, Aramaic was never written and no
>>>> Aramaic texts exist from the time, so the first writing was in Greek
>>>> based on what was heard in Aramaic.
>>>
>>> Would have been nice if shorthand had existed at the time and there were
>>> verbatim transcripts of the discussions that led to the final form of the
>>> New Testament, but there weren't and there aren't and so we'll never know
>>> how much revisionism existed.
>>
>> Shrug. The early church would have re-written the text anyway and
>> then destroyed the originals.
>
>You mean they didn't?

I expect that they just made it all up from scraps.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer