The son of a poor carpenter?
Daniel Hoehr
seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter". Since
context matters, our 'super-expert' on the life of Christ came up with
that maybe because he wanted to convince SumBuny (and probably
himself) that Jesus, being the son of a mere "carpenter", could by no
means have "taught" the "didaskaloi" mentioned in Luke 2:46 (Vulgate:
"docti", Mark Johnson: 'super-experts'). Since the Bible nowhere says
that Jesus "taught" in the Temple at the age of 12, but rather asked
the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
or, at most, debated with them, we can assume that Saint Markie,
Super-Catholic-Indeed, is too fucking stupid to read his facing pages
as written. Never mind.
The question I would like to explore here is whether Joseph was indeed
the poor and simple carpenter as he has often been depicted both in
art and also in Catholic folklore.
Unless my concordance fails me, only two verses in the New Testament
mention Joseph's profession, namely Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Both
verses use the Greek word "tektwn" (the "w" represents the letter
omega in my transliteration and thus a long 'o' sound). "tektwn,
tektonos" does not only mean "carpenter", but basically means somebody
in the building trade who would also work in stone. The Vulgate
translates "tektwn" as "faber", a word whose meaning is also not
restricted to "carpenter". Like "tektwn" it can also mean craftsman or
somebody in the building trade in general.
Galilee was not a poor part of the country. Judging from
archaeological findings in that area, it was actually a prosperous
trade centre where people lived in houses of stone, and had a high
standard of living as we know from excavations. Whether the house that
is said to be the one of Saint Peter's mother-in-law (in Kapharnaum)
is the original one or not - it is spacious, solid and did not belong
to anybody in the "working class" (I've seen it myself).
So the area where Jesus grew up was rich and we have good reasons to
assume that we're not dealing with the son of a poor carpenter whose
friends were poor fishermen. We know from Luke 2:41 that Jesus's
parents went to Jerusalem every year to celebrate the feast of
passover. Could the family of a poor carpenter afford that annual
journey? Probably not. We're dealing with people from well-earning
families who could afford stone houses, upper-middle-class, in the
manner of speaking.
Jesus, as the oldest ... well..... son of Joseph, was destined to take
over his father's business, as it was the tradition in those days. The
gospels (except for Luke) are remarkably quiet about what Jesus did
before he was about 30. It is very likely that he worked in his
father's trade, got used to the business and learned the necessary
skills, not only in the craft but also the business aspect of it.
And we can also assume that Jesus was educated accordingly. His native
language was Aramaic, but since the trade language was Greek, he could
have only survived in the business with a good knowledge of Greek. As
a Jew, whose family could afford religious education, He must have
also learned Hebrew (remember: Jesus was also *human*). So it is less
than a miracle that He was able to converse with the "didaskaloi" in
the Temple of Jerusalem, but more the fact that He was a bright boy
with an inquisitive mind who had already received a good religious
education.
To conclude: the image of Joseph as a poor craftsman is certainly not
backed-up by Scripture and from what we know from archaeology, at
least Jesus, Peter and Andrew came from a prosperous, upper-middle
class background. Thus it was quite something leaving their families
behind and in that context, Christ commanding the Apostles
"that they should take nothing for the way, but a staff only: no
scrip, no bread, nor money in their purse, but to be shoed with
sandals, and that they should not put on two coats" [Mark 6:8f]
basically meant leaving the high standard of living they were used to
behind. It was asking a lot.
Daniel
€ R.L. Measures
<dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll in this newsgroup
> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter". Since
> context matters, our 'super-expert' on the life of Christ came up with
> that maybe because he wanted to convince SumBuny (and probably
> himself) that Jesus, being the son of a mere "carpenter", could by no
> means have "taught" the "didaskaloi" mentioned in Luke 2:46 (Vulgate:
> "docti", Mark Johnson: 'super-experts'). Since the Bible nowhere says
> that Jesus "taught" in the Temple at the age of 12, but rather asked
> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
> or, at most, debated with them, we can assume that Saint Markie,
> Super-Catholic-Indeed, is too fucking stupid to read his facing pages
> as written. Never mind.
>
> The question I would like to explore here is whether Joseph was indeed
> the poor and simple carpenter as he has often been depicted both in
> art and also in Catholic folklore.
>
** Joseph the Nazarean carpenter was not poor by any standard. He held
the patent on a novel cedar headboard for beds with a built-in pair of
stocks. This item was a favorite of both Romans and Jews. According to
reliable sources, Joe also had site-licensing agreements with sporting
houses from the Dead Sea to Beirut, Lebanon. It has been estimated that
Joe employed about two dozen people in his Kinky-Bed® manufacturing
facilities in Nazareth and in Jerusalem.
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
Salome, Mistress of Decapitation
Brilliant post, DH. I have nothing to add. I just wanted to see it go
past again.
Robert A. Walker
I'll second that. And as I've understood it, the translation as
"carpenter" is probably not quite correct. Joseph was probably closer
to what is called in American English a building contractor, which
includes a lot of trades related to building.
Alan Ferris
<dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Skilled carpenters and craftsmen tended to be anything but poor. He
sounds though as if he is in fact a master craftsman. He has a
workshop where it is expected his son will train. Most poor
carpenters would have worked out of their home, or on the street, not
a workshop.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
SumBuny
This is a great synopsis of what was described on many of the History
Channel's programs to show the archealogical evidence of the culture during
the time of Jesus. There were several programs on the History Channel, the
Learning Channel, and the Discovery Channel on this subject during Christmas
(and likely to be repeated during Easter). This is exactly what came to
mind when MJ decided that working with one's hands must equal being
ignorant...
We are told that Joseph was a carpenter--we do not know what kind of
carpenter, or of what caliber. But consider the intelligence of a carpenter
who builds houses--he has to know at least the basics of architecture,
physics, and design (need to know if a design can take the weight load asked
of it)...finish carpenters in this day and age are well paid and educated,
and are also seen as artists...
And considering the price of fine furniture, well, there is money there for
tuition to fine schools as well....
Carpenter=ignorant=dumb is a prime example of prejudice from MJ...
Buny
"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
Stephen Korsman
The Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association has an interesting book
called "Peter's story," which even counts the number (2) of houses Jesus
built and owned. The author is GTA, son of the late Herbert Armstrong of
the Worldwide Church of God / Plain Truth. Peculiar group with peculiar
beliefs, but I see little reason why this particular scenario can't be true.
Certainly speculation, but nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, the Bible,
or history, as far as I am aware.
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za/adventism
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
CharliePF1
Hey Dan, good post, and I mean it.
> Jesus, as the oldest ... well..... son of Joseph, was destined to take
> over his father's business, as it was the tradition in those days. The
> gospels (except for Luke) are remarkably quiet about what Jesus did
> before he was about 30. It is very likely that he worked in his
> father's trade, got used to the business and learned the necessary
> skills, not only in the craft but also the business aspect of it.
Anyone who has done any construction work at all, including
carpentry, will know immediately from those paintings of Jesus
that He was not a carpenter. No carpenter could ever work while
being draped head to toe in white flowing robes. You'd fall off
scaffolds, rough lumber would get hung up in your clothing and
snag, no way you could climb safely on a building in progress
wearing that getup. The sandals and the beard would also be
a liability, drop a heavy tool on your exposed toe and you'll
be out of work for a few days at least. Beards, nah. The
other day, I saw a hippie electrician get his beard
tangled up in a moving drill, it wasn't a pretty sight. Construction
hazards haven't changed that much through the ages, although
OSHA regulations have made things better these days. Jesus a
carpenter? Nah, He was a spaced out hippie, seeing visions and
having revelations about the afterworld, maybe even a fan of
psychedelic mushrooms.
bernard connor
Is there any archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed in the time
of Christ? . After Constantine, Christian tourists descended on
Palestine seeking evidence and relics of Jesus. Constantine's mother
St Helen found the "Holy Cross" and thus began the superstitious
devotion to phoney relics, sold to gullible tourists by wiley arab
trailers. After the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud showed it
to be of 13th Century origin, it is unlikely that the Vatican would
take a similar risk by testing any of the fragments of the Holy Cross.
My recollection of Roman History, is that when the Christian tourists
failed to find Nazareth, they built a Christian town in what they
considered to be the most likely place.
As elswhere among Palestinians, the Christian population has declined
drastically since the foundation of Israel.
A similar process has been going on in Iraq since the first Gulf War.
Christians were a large minority in Iraq, but they have been leaving
gradually.
I think that Saddam's Deputy is a Christian. He surrendered early
after the Fall of Baghdad and sought treatment fo heart trouble. Since
then he has disappeared, preumably to Guantanamo Bay, where medical
treatment is hardly a priority.
Bernard.
Daniel Hoehr
bernard connor wrote:
> Is there any archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed in the time
> of Christ? .
Yes, there is archaelogical evidence that people lived in Nazareth at
the end of the 3rd millenium BC. There is also evidence that the place
existed in Hellenistic-Roman times (2nd/1st century BC). Archaeology
has found grottos, canals, silos and wells. [LThK, 1998. sv "Nazareth"]
In literature, Nazareth is mentioned 29 times in the New Testament (if
my concordance doesn't fail me), but apart from that it is not
mentioned in any Jewish or Roman source until the 3rd century AD [LThK].
And here the thing is getting a bit difficult. Matthew and Luke
explicitly refer to Nazareth as a city (eg. Matth 2:23: "polis
legomenaen Nazaret"; Luke 2:4: "Anebae de kai Iwsaeph apo taes
Galilaias ek polews Nazareth..." -- note the two different spellings,
one with "theta" and one with "tau"), other verses leave no doubt that
"Nazareth" is a place name (eg. Matth 4:13, Mark 1:9.). Mark also uses
the adverbial "ho apo Nazaret" four times.
On the other hand, Matthew, John and Acts have the appositions
"Nazaraenos" & "Nazwraios" (in total 12 times), Luke uses both.
Especially the term "Nazwraios" is interesting. It is a so-called
"nomen gentilicium", some sort of family name may or may not be
derived from a place. And that is the question here.
This Greek word has its origins in the Aramaic word "nesoray" or
"nazeray". Matthew (Matth 2:23) explains Nazareth as the place where
Jesus's family lived by saying: "so that that should be fulfilled
which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matthew propably refers to Judges 13:5.7, where the Hebrew word
"nazir" is used, which means "consecrated one", "prince". LXX
translates "nazir" as "Nazwraios". In Acts 24:5 as well as in Jewish
literature of the time Christians are called "Nazwraios" too.
We also know, and here comes the interesting bit, that there was a
Jewish sect with a very similar name, the Nazarenes, "the consecrated
ones". In this sect baptism played a crucial role. We know from
Scripture that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. Is John the
Baptist the link between the sect of the Nazarenes and Jesus?
The question arises whether the phrase "Iaesous ho Nazwraios" (which
was according to John 19:19 the inscription on the cross) means "Jesus
from the city of Nazareth" or, in this context, "Jesus the Nazarene".
The New Testament verses that use the appositions "Nazaraenos" or
"Nazwraios" outweigh the verses that doubtlessly refer to the place
Nazareth, which, as we have seen, did exist in the time of Jesus and
was a prosperous Hellenistic and Roman town. It may well be that Jesus
did belong to the sect of the Nazarenes and that this is expressed in
the phrase "Iaesous ho Nazwraios"" -- Jesus the Nazarene.
> After Constantine, Christian tourists descended on
> Palestine seeking evidence and relics of Jesus. Constantine's mother
> St Helen found the "Holy Cross" and thus began the superstitious
> devotion to phoney relics, sold to gullible tourists by wiley arab
> trailers. After the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud showed it
> to be of 13th Century origin, it is unlikely that the Vatican would
> take a similar risk by testing any of the fragments of the Holy Cross.
If you take all existing fragments of the Cross and put them together,
you'll get a cross that's big enough to crucify an entire Roman
Legion. But then again, the possession of relics were a crucial
economic factor in the Middle Ages. If a town had important relics,
more pilgrims would travel to that twon -- and would spend their money
there.
Over here in Cologne, Germany (I live in the neighbourhood of
Cologne), we have the bones of the Three Magoi in our wonderful
Cathedral and in the church Sankt Ursula the bones of St. Ursula and
the 11,000 virgins. The thing is that the legend says that in the 3rd
century AD a certain Ursula, the daughter of a British king, was on a
pilgrimage from Britain to Rome with 11 virgins and, passing through
Cologne, the poor ladies got slaughtered by a bunch of evil Romans.
Centuries later the demand for relics was that great, that the number
of virgins that travelled with Ursula had been raised to 11,000. How
was that possible? Easy! The letter M stands for "martyr" as well as
for "1,000". So the 11 martyrs became 11,000 martyrs. In addition, the
first Church that was built and dedicated to her was built on an
ancient Roman cemetary. Some decades after the Teutones kicked some
major Roman butt in the Teutogburger Wald in AD 9 (thousands of Roman
soldiers got killed), their remains were taken to Colonia Claudia Ara
Agrippinensis (Cologne) and buried outsite the city walls. And those
were the bones that were later thought to be the ones belonging to the
11,000 virgins that had been slaughtered alongside with Saint Ursula.
Now, all that had to be done was to dig out said bones and declare
them relics. Typical medieval practice.
Even today you can see about 1,800 skulls on display in the Golden
Chamber of Saint Ursula, Cologne. Spooky.
> My recollection of Roman History, is that when the Christian tourists
> failed to find Nazareth, they built a Christian town in what they
> considered to be the most likely place.
Yes, but in that case there really was a town.
> As elswhere among Palestinians, the Christian population has declined
> drastically since the foundation of Israel.
>
> A similar process has been going on in Iraq since the first Gulf War.
> Christians were a large minority in Iraq, but they have been leaving
> gradually.
>
> I think that Saddam's Deputy is a Christian.
Yes, if you mean Mr Aziz. His Church is in communion with the Catholic
Church.
> He surrendered early
> after the Fall of Baghdad and sought treatment fo heart trouble. Since
> then he has disappeared, preumably to Guantanamo Bay, where medical
> treatment is hardly a priority.
Hardly.....
> Bernard.
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
CharliePF1 wrote:
> "Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>
> Hey Dan, good post, and I mean it.
Cheers, Charlie!
>>Jesus, as the oldest ... well..... son of Joseph, was destined to take
>>over his father's business, as it was the tradition in those days. The
>>gospels (except for Luke) are remarkably quiet about what Jesus did
>>before he was about 30. It is very likely that he worked in his
>>father's trade, got used to the business and learned the necessary
>>skills, not only in the craft but also the business aspect of it.
>
>
> Anyone who has done any construction work at all, including
> carpentry, will know immediately from those paintings of Jesus
> that He was not a carpenter. No carpenter could ever work while
> being draped head to toe in white flowing robes. You'd fall off
> scaffolds, rough lumber would get hung up in your clothing and
> snag, no way you could climb safely on a building in progress
> wearing that getup. The sandals and the beard would also be
> a liability, drop a heavy tool on your exposed toe and you'll
> be out of work for a few days at least. Beards, nah. The
> other day, I saw a hippie electrician get his beard
> tangled up in a moving drill, it wasn't a pretty sight.
Ouch.
> Construction
> hazards haven't changed that much through the ages, although
> OSHA regulations have made things better these days. Jesus a
> carpenter? Nah, He was a spaced out hippie, seeing visions and
> having revelations about the afterworld, maybe even a fan of
> psychedelic mushrooms.
And what if Jesus decided at the age of 30 that the whole construction
business was not really His sort of thing, sold His shares of daddy's
business at the Galilee Stock Exchange, invested the money in some
decent white robes, grew a beard and, together with his pals from the
fish industry, who'd also had enough of their jobs, went for the
apocalyptic mushroom thingy?
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
Robert A. Walker wrote:
> "Salome, Mistress of Decapitation" <s...@bringonthebaconeggsand.spam> wrote in message news:<4f4q00hb0bcvpfpb6...@4ax.com>...
>>Brilliant post, DH. I have nothing to add. I just wanted to see it go
>>past again.
>
>
> I'll second that. And as I've understood it, the translation as
> "carpenter" is probably not quite correct. Joseph was probably closer
> to what is called in American English a building contractor, which
> includes a lot of trades related to building.
Well, it seems the Greek "tektwn" (as well as the Latin "faber") as a
much broader meaning than just "carpenter". Maybe in ancient times a
workman at a building site was not as specialised as they are today
and were skilled in working in stone as well as in wood. So
"carpenter" is only one aspect of "tektwn".
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
Thanks, mate!
DH
rwalker
Much like "pro multis" has a wider meaning than many (well, some) seem to think.
bernard connor
I am aware that archaeological excavations have found "urban remains"
near present day Nazareth, but I am not aware that it has proved to be
Nazareth. You refer to the term "Nazarene" which was used to describe
Jesus and the Hebrew Christians. "Nazarite" was also used.
The problem is that the wonderful story of Joseph and Mary (pregnant)
travelling to Bethlehem for the census does not make sense. For a
census, the best thing to do is stay where you are.
Bernard
Daniel Hoehr
I'd die to see their argumentation and the evidence they provide.
> The author is GTA, son of the late Herbert Armstrong of
> the Worldwide Church of God / Plain Truth. Peculiar group with peculiar
> beliefs, but I see little reason why this particular scenario can't be true.
> Certainly speculation, but nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, the Bible,
> or history, as far as I am aware.
Well, as long as a book is interesting and well-written (even though
speculative), I don't care what the authors believe. I've read some
really interesting books and most certainly were contrary to Catholic
Church teaching, but they were still entertaining if not interesting.
DH
> God bless,
> Stephen
Daniel Hoehr
SumBuny wrote:
> TOP POSTING
>
> This is a great synopsis of what was described on many of the History
> Channel's programs to show the archealogical evidence of the culture during
> the time of Jesus. There were several programs on the History Channel, the
> Learning Channel, and the Discovery Channel on this subject during Christmas
> (and likely to be repeated during Easter). This is exactly what came to
> mind when MJ decided that working with one's hands must equal being
> ignorant...
There is, btw, a really interesting article about the "historical"
Jesus in this month's German edition of _Geo_. (I don't know whether
the right word is "historical" or "historic" at the moment. I usually
know these things, but it's quite late and I'm too tired to think
about it, so feel free to correct my English . . . here). The author
puts everything we know about the time and the place together in one
picture to get a historical background for the events described in the
New Testament.
> We are told that Joseph was a carpenter--we do not know what kind of
> carpenter, or of what caliber.
Well, the translation of the NT tell us he was a carpenter, which is
only one aspect of "tektwn". A reader of the NT in the 1st century AD
would have got the full meaning of the noun.
> But consider the intelligence of a carpenter
> who builds houses--he has to know at least the basics of architecture,
> physics, and design (need to know if a design can take the weight load asked
> of it)...finish carpenters in this day and age are well paid and educated,
> and are also seen as artists...
Of course. The whole building trade has ever been an educated one.
Geometry, statics, etc....
> And considering the price of fine furniture, well, there is money there for
> tuition to fine schools as well....
Or a nice roof on a fancy stone house in the south of Galilee? Now,
the Greek word is "tektwn" (w = omega = long and open o-sound). And
what's "roof" in Latin? "tectum". So, as we can guess from the
etymology, a "tektwn" was indeed somebody who was in the building
trade and possibly not so much into furniture.
> Carpenter=ignorant=dumb is a prime example of prejudice from MJ...
And what about:
MJ=ignorant=dumb?
> Buny
DH
--
"Don't project. Remember, _I'm_ the Reformed Catholic, here."
St. Mark Johnson on arcr-c, 15 May 2003
<3j09cv01sg6ecnujv...@4ax.com>
Salome, Princess of Piquant Panaceas
Stephen Korsman
They offer the book for free ... http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/ or
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/
> > The author is GTA, son of the late Herbert Armstrong of
> > the Worldwide Church of God / Plain Truth. Peculiar group with peculiar
> > beliefs, but I see little reason why this particular scenario can't be
true.
> > Certainly speculation, but nothing contrary to Catholic teaching, the
Bible,
> > or history, as far as I am aware.
>
> Well, as long as a book is interesting and well-written (even though
> speculative), I don't care what the authors believe. I've read some
> really interesting books and most certainly were contrary to Catholic
> Church teaching, but they were still entertaining if not interesting.
Sure ... I read more anti-Catholic non-fiction than Catholic non-fiction,
and the science fiction that is theologically cuckoo is often some of the
best.
bernard connor
According to the NT Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the
Great,King of Judea who died in 4 BC. The purpose of a census in Roman
times was for taxation (poll tax?), but although Judea was a vassal
state of Rome, the people would not be taxed directly, hence no
census.
There is a record of a census in 6 AD. Presumably the NT Greek writers
ca 100 years later wanted to assert that Joseph was of Royal Lineage.
This is asserted in the two Geneologies of Christ, although they
differ somewhat.
Clearly, the assumption is that Jesus was the son of Joseph.
There are accounts of a marriage in the NT, but not of Joseph. When
he noticed that Mary was pregnant, he was going to "put her away", but
was persuaded by an angel in a dream that God was the father of the
child. Odd!
It seems that Joseph kept Mary in his household together with his
other wife or wives as Jesus had brothers and probably sisters.
Bernard
There is
Mark Johnson
>"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
>> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll
Speak for yourself, DH. Remember, _I_ had to killfile you - three
times. You couldn't help but go troll.
>> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter".
And:
>> Since context matters
Well, it always does to me. I think DH always found context very . .
inconvenient.
>> "docti", Mark Johnson: 'super-experts'). Since the Bible nowhere says
>> that Jesus "taught" in the Temple at the age of 12, but rather asked
>> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
He taught, at the Temple. He taught as one Who knew. It enraged the
'experts', some, who heard Him.
>> Super-Catholic-Indeed, is too fucking stupid to read his facing pages
>> as written.
Sputtering from the gutter again, DH? Even the dirty runoff from the
curb must be refreshing for you, considering your context.
>> The question I would like to explore here is whether Joseph was indeed
>> the poor and simple carpenter
He was the son of a carpenter. Whether you wish to characterize them
as poor is another matter. Clearly The Blessed Family had their own
home, and the father a respected occupation.
>> Daniel
>This is a great synopsis
Sure, of a paper argument that was never proposed. Tilting at straw
men, as always.
>the time of Jesus. There were several programs on the History Channel, the
>Learning Channel, and the Discovery Channel on this subject during Christmas
>(and likely to be repeated during Easter). This is exactly what came to
>mind when MJ decided that working with one's hands must equal being
>ignorant.
I said nothing of the sort. That's obviously YOUR prejudice. Don't put
that on me. Don't project.
You know what they say about projection, 'sum'.
>We are told that Joseph was a carpenter--we do not know what kind of
>carpenter, or of what caliber.
Probably a respected master carpenter. There's lot of things you build
with wood. You like tv. Just watch Norm Abram as he builds all sort of
stuff on houses, in houses, and for houses, on his two tv shows.
>Carpenter=ignorant=dumb is a prime example of prejudice from MJ...
>Buny
Just your projection, 'sum'. I said or suggested nothing of the sort.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
SumBuny
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:j12v00hh3rc2i6ijj...@4ax.com...
> "SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
>
> >> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll
>
> Speak for yourself, DH. Remember, _I_ had to killfile you - three
> times. You couldn't help but go troll.
>
>
> >> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter".
>
> And:
>
> >> Since context matters
>
> Well, it always does to me. I think DH always found context very . .
> inconvenient.
>
> >> "docti", Mark Johnson: 'super-experts'). Since the Bible nowhere says
> >> that Jesus "taught" in the Temple at the age of 12, but rather asked
> >> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
>
> He taught, at the Temple. He taught as one Who knew. It enraged the
> 'experts', some, who heard Him.
Still waiting for you to provide the chapter:verse that states that Jesus
did anything more than ask intelligent questions and gave the teachers
surprising answersa to their questions (which is NOT *teaching).
>
> >> The question I would like to explore here is whether Joseph was indeed
> >> the poor and simple carpenter
>
> He was the son of a carpenter. Whether you wish to characterize them
> as poor is another matter. Clearly The Blessed Family had their own
> home, and the father a respected occupation.
I am glad you agree...do you agree that it also meant that it was highly
likely that the family was also educated?
>
> >the time of Jesus. There were several programs on the History Channel,
the
> >Learning Channel, and the Discovery Channel on this subject during
Christmas
> >(and likely to be repeated during Easter). This is exactly what came to
> >mind when MJ decided that working with one's hands must equal being
> >ignorant.
>
> I said nothing of the sort. That's obviously YOUR prejudice. Don't put
> that on me. Don't project.
Your insinuation that being the son of a carpenter meant that Jesus ability
to ask questions that surprised the teachers could not have been possible?
You mean that?
>
> You know what they say about projection, 'sum'.
I know what *you* say...you never have properly identified who "they" are,
so one has to believe that those words are yours.
>
>
> >We are told that Joseph was a carpenter--we do not know what kind of
> >carpenter, or of what caliber.
>
> Probably a respected master carpenter. There's lot of things you build
> with wood. You like tv. Just watch Norm Abram as he builds all sort of
> stuff on houses, in houses, and for houses, on his two tv shows.
I am glad you agree...do you agree that this means that Joseph's family was
also educated?
>
>
> >Carpenter=ignorant=dumb is a prime example of prejudice from MJ...
> >Buny
>
> Just your projection, 'sum'. I said or suggested nothing of the sort.
Then what did you mean to say about Jesus' ability to ask intelligent
questions of the teachers, and to give them surprising answers to their
questions?
Buny
SumBuny
"bernard connor" <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6bc4e164.04012...@posting.google.com...
>
> I am aware that archaeological excavations have found "urban remains"
> near present day Nazareth, but I am not aware that it has proved to be
> Nazareth. You refer to the term "Nazarene" which was used to describe
> Jesus and the Hebrew Christians. "Nazarite" was also used.
>
> The problem is that the wonderful story of Joseph and Mary (pregnant)
> travelling to Bethlehem for the census does not make sense. For a
> census, the best thing to do is stay where you are.
The History Channel, in one of its many programs about the historical Jesus
bar Joses, has a theory about this one. The couple had to go to the city of
Joseph's ancestors. That was Bethlehem. No man in his right mind would
take his pregnant wife on a dangerous journey to be among strangers--death
in childbirth was so common that this was a scary time for a woman. BUT--if
they were going to a place where there was *family*, then Joseph and Mary
were probably doing what so many of us do now--give birth among family, and
have the help there.
Off the top of my head, I cannot remember where they were travelling
*from*...but how far was it to Bethlehem?
THC also talks about the "no room at the inn" and laying Him in a
manger...there were very few inns in villages at that time, if at all.
Going to the theory above, that they went to family, it makes more sense,
especially if one knows what the living conditions were at that time. The
houses--many of stone--had the living quarters upstairs, and the "barn" for
the cattle/sheep/etc downstairs. If they were visiting family, it is
possible that there was not a lot of room upstairs...i.e., when my family
goes to visit the in-laws, most of the time we are not sleeping in a
bedroom, but on the couch in the living room. The same here...clean out a
corner of the extra room (where the animals stayed when the weather was bad)
and set up a "bedroom" there...
Buny
SumBuny
"CharliePF1" <Charl...@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:CknPb.2072$J72....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>
> Hey Dan, good post, and I mean it.
>
> > Jesus, as the oldest ... well..... son of Joseph, was destined to take
> > over his father's business, as it was the tradition in those days. The
> > gospels (except for Luke) are remarkably quiet about what Jesus did
> > before he was about 30. It is very likely that he worked in his
> > father's trade, got used to the business and learned the necessary
> > skills, not only in the craft but also the business aspect of it.
>
> Anyone who has done any construction work at all, including
> carpentry, will know immediately from those paintings of Jesus
> that He was not a carpenter. No carpenter could ever work while
> being draped head to toe in white flowing robes. You'd fall off
> scaffolds, rough lumber would get hung up in your clothing and
> snag, no way you could climb safely on a building in progress
> wearing that getup. The sandals and the beard would also be
> a liability, drop a heavy tool on your exposed toe and you'll
> be out of work for a few days at least.
You are probably right...the "flowing robes" were in all likelyhood not worn
"at work"...probably something closer to the more modern dish-dashas seen in
the Arab world *underneath* the flowing robes (my uncle was a shrimper...I
canNOT imagine pulling nets aboard a boat with flowing robes...closer cut
tunics are more practical).
As far as dropping tools...steel-toed boots had yet to be invented....
> Beards, nah. The
> other day, I saw a hippie electrician get his beard
> tangled up in a moving drill, it wasn't a pretty sight.
The portrait of a man with long, *straight* brown hair and blue eyes is not
what a Jewish man looked like 2000 years ago, or now...you have to take such
representations with a huge grain of salt.
It *is* possible to be safe with a beard...but not a long one...
Buny
<daughter of a mechanic, niece of a shrimper, wife of an aircraft
engineer/mechanic>
bernard connor
> "bernard connor" <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6bc4e164.04012...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I am aware that archaeological excavations have found "urban remains"
> > near present day Nazareth, but I am not aware that it has proved to be
> > Nazareth. You refer to the term "Nazarene" which was used to describe
> > Jesus and the Hebrew Christians. "Nazarite" was also used.
> >
> > The problem is that the wonderful story of Joseph and Mary (pregnant)
> > travelling to Bethlehem for the census does not make sense. For a
> > census, the best thing to do is stay where you are.
>
>
> The History Channel, in one of its many programs about the historical Jesus
> bar Joses, has a theory about this one. The couple had to go to the city of
> Joseph's ancestors. That was Bethlehem. No man in his right mind would
> take his pregnant wife on a dangerous journey to be among strangers--death
> in childbirth was so common that this was a scary time for a woman. BUT--if
> they were going to a place where there was *family*, then Joseph and Mary
> were probably doing what so many of us do now--give birth among family, and
> have the help there.
>
> Off the top of my head, I cannot remember where they were travelling
> *from*...but how far was it to Bethlehem?
>
from there. Both places are shown in modern atlases so you can measue
the
distance easily.
As I wrote earlier, the travel makes no sense. The probability was
that the Evangelists added the census (6 AD) to explain the journey to
Bethlehem, which was probably about 5 BC. But I have never heard of a
census which required travel to the city of a remote ancetral king.
I agree with your paragraph below. It makes sense in the light of our
knowledge of homes at that time.
Bernard.
Daniel Hoehr
guts to and we don't want that . . . here, do we?
Mark Johnson ranted:
<most of MJ's crap snipped>
> "SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
>
> >> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll
>
> Speak for yourself, DH. Remember, _I_ had to killfile you - three
> times. You couldn't help but go troll.
>
> >> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter".
>
> And:
>
> >> Since context matters
>
> Well, it always does to me.
LOL! Good one, MJ. Can I have some more please?
> I think DH always found context very . .
> inconvenient.
Don't project, 'mark johnson', because you know what they say about
that.
> >> "docti", Mark Johnson: 'super-experts'). Since the Bible nowhere says
> >> that Jesus "taught" in the Temple at the age of 12, but rather asked
> >> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
>
> He taught, at the Temple.
Yes, He did. But not as a 12-year-old.
> >We are told that Joseph was a carpenter--we do not know what kind of
> >carpenter, or of what caliber.
>
> Probably a respected master carpenter. There's lot of things you build
> with wood.
... and stone. As the Greek word "tektwn" suggests. But you find the
original language of the NT very inconvenient, don't you?
DH
Daniel Hoehr
rwalker schrieb:
Most certainly.
Unfortunately *some* people find it a bit inconvenient to be confronted
with the meanings "hyper/peri pollwn" can have, because it sort of makes
their own little pseudo-theological mumbo-jumbo collapse.
Poor sods.
DH
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
Amazing what lengths Mark will go to, in order to sustain his
illusion that all "true", traditionalist Catholics are prosperous people of high
status in the world outside of their congregation.
Paul
Mark Johnson
I see DH trolling, again - and obsessed as ever, with myself:
>"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
>> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll in this newsgroup
>> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter". Since
>> context matters, our 'super-expert' on the life of Christ came up with
>> that maybe because he wanted to convince SumBuny (and probably
>> himself) that Jesus, being the son of a mere "carpenter"
Just you, DH. I never said - mere - carpenter.
That's how you see it.
>> means have "taught"
Just you, DH. That's how you see it. I said no such thing.
>> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
>> or, at most, debated with them
Taught as one Who knew, so much to enrage the 'experts' nearby. That's
not something kids that age did - unless you just don't see it that
way.
>>we can assume that Saint Markie, Super-Catholic-Indeed
Just you, DH. I'm not the Catholic Reformed, here - granting you that
benefit of the doubt, of course.
>> The question I would like to explore here is whether Joseph was indeed
>> the poor and simple carpenter
He was a carpenter, likely of great note and mastery.
>> Unless my concordance fails me, only two verses in the New Testament
>> mention Joseph's profession
He was a carpenter.
>> tektonos" does not only mean "carpenter", but basically means somebody
>> in the building trade who would also work in stone.
He was a carpenter.
>> translates "tektwn" as "faber", a word whose meaning is also not
>> restricted to "carpenter". Like "tektwn" it can also mean craftsman or
>> somebody in the building trade in general.
See above.
>> Galilee was not a poor part of the country. Judging from
>> archaeological findings in that area, it was actually a prosperous
>> trade centre where people lived in houses of stone
And they lived in a house, which they had to flee because of Herod.
>> standard of living as we know from excavations. Whether the house that
>> is said to be the one of Saint Peter's mother-in-law (in Kapharnaum)
>> is the original one or not - it is spacious, solid and did not belong
>> to anybody in the "working class"
Yes, St. Joseph worked as a carpenter.
>> So the area where Jesus grew up was rich and we have good reasons to
>> assume that we're not dealing with the son of a poor carpenter
Just you, DH. You're the only one here who introduced the word, poor.
That's how you see people who work with their hands - poor? If so,
that's all you, DH.
>> Jesus, as the oldest ... well..... son of Joseph, was destined to take
>> over his father's business, as it was the tradition in those days. The
>> gospels (except for Luke) are remarkably quiet about what Jesus did
>> before he was about 30. It is very likely that he worked in his
>> father's trade, got used to the business and learned the necessary
>> skills, not only in the craft but also the business aspect of it.
He was God. God knows this stuff.
You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
>> And we can also assume that Jesus was educated accordingly. His native
>> language was Aramaic, but since the trade language was Greek, he could
>> have only survived in the business with a good knowledge of Greek. As
>> a Jew, whose family could afford religious education, He must have
>> also learned Hebrew (remember: Jesus was also *human*
You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last bit?
>> the Temple of Jerusalem, but more the fact that He was a bright boy
>> with an inquisitive mind who had already received a good religious
>> education.
He was God. That was God, teaching in the Second Temple, in a
Temple-based Judaism. So are ya, or aren't ya? Arian, that is.
>The Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association has an interesting book
>called "Peter's story," which even counts the number (2) of houses Jesus
>built and owned.
Which two did Our Lord build - I assume you mean entirely by himself -
and then own?
Peace.
-----------------------
"[There] are countless people who pretend not
to hate Christ, but subtly demote him to the
rank of a 'great moral teacher,' or say they
have nothing against Christianity as long as
the 'separation of church and state' is observed,
or, under the guise of scholarship, affect to
winnow out his 'authentic' utterances from those
falsely ascribed to him as if the Apostles would
have dared to put words in his mouth!"
[Joe Sobran, The Words and Deeds of Christ, NOV 2000,
http://www.sobran.com/wordschrist.shtml ]
Daniel Hoehr
bernard connor wrote:
> According to the NT Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the
> Great,King of Judea who died in 4 BC. The purpose of a census in Roman
> times was for taxation (poll tax?), but although Judea was a vassal
> state of Rome, the people would not be taxed directly, hence no
> census.
>
> There is a record of a census in 6 AD. Presumably the NT Greek writers
> ca 100 years later
Well, 70 - 100....
> wanted to assert that Joseph was of Royal Lineage.
> This is asserted in the two Geneologies of Christ, although they
> differ somewhat.
As I wrote in my other reply to you, the gospel writer were concerned
with preaching a theological truth and not necessarily a historical
truth. They wrote from different backgrounds, understood the
"euangelion" differently and wrote for different target-groups,
although, at least the synoptics, seemed to have had a common source
("Q"). The material that Matthew used for his Sermon of the Mount was
used by Luke for his Sermon in the Field. It can be assumed that both
"scenes" contain authentic material. Now, does it really matter
whether Jesus stood on a mountain (or hill, rather) or in a field?
Historically, it doesn't matter. Theologically it makes a difference.
Matthew wrote for Hebrew Christians, which were familiar with a very
similar scene. By placing Jesus on top of a mountain and letting him
say the ten sentences that begin with the word "makaroi" -- except the
last one: "chairete" -- (cf. Matth 5: 3-12), Matthew alluded to Moses
on Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments. Thus, Matthew wanted to
present Jesus as the new Moses. Luke, whose gospel came after
Matthew's and who might have been familiar with it, he most certainly
knew Mark's gospel), wrote for the Gentiles. There was no need to
allude to a scene from Jewish Scripture.
> Clearly, the assumption is that Jesus was the son of Joseph.
>
> There are accounts of a marriage in the NT, but not of Joseph. When
> he noticed that Mary was pregnant, he was going to "put her away", but
> was persuaded by an angel in a dream that God was the father of the
> child. Odd!
Yes, particularly because the geneaology in Matthew 1:2 - 17 leaves no
doubt that Jesus was Joseph's son (cf 1:16f). But the purpose of this
genealogy is similar to the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew imitates the style of the endless genealogies that "P"
contributed to the Old Testament, Genesis in particular. His target
group of readers/listeners had a Jewish background.
From Abraham to Christ it's three times fourteen generations (Abraham
- David: 14 generations; David to Babylonian Exile: 14 generations,
Babylonian Exile - Christ 14 generations.) The number 14 seems to have
a symbolic number and besides copying OT style (thus chosing a style
his target group were familiar with), Matthew also divides the history
of Israel into three epochs: Abraham to David; David to Babylon;
Babylon to Christ. Thus Christ is the both the crown and fulfillment
of the history of Israel; what's more is that to a Jew, the history of
Israel is also the revelation of God to His chosen people and His
works on and for the people. And that is, as far as I can see it, the
message in the genealogy. It's the theological truth Matthew wanted
his target group to know and it did not matter whether or not the
genealogy is historically correct.
What is really odd is that Matthew contradicts himself. He wants, of
course, to make the point that Jesus comes from the roayl line of
David (1:17), so His father, Joseph, is also from the royal line of
David (1:16). Yet in 1:20 we read:
"But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord
appeared to him in his sleep, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not
to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her,
is of the Holy Ghost."
So - Jesus is either of the line of David (and thus fulfilling one of
the requirements of the Messiah) or of the Holy Ghost (and thus Son of
God but not of the family line of David).
This is one of the mysteries of Matthew's gospel.
> It seems that Joseph kept Mary in his household together with his
> other wife or wives as Jesus had brothers and probably sisters.
Yes, true. The NT mentions his brothers (one was, IIRC, James). I
don't have the time now to look it all up, unfortunately.
But if he had brothers, the dogma (?) of Beata Maria Semper Virgo
seems less understandable.
> Bernard
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
bernard connor wrote:
> I am aware that archaeological excavations have found "urban remains"
> near present day Nazareth, but I am not aware that it has proved to be
> Nazareth.
Well, there was a town in the time of Christ, which is mentioned in
the gospels and in Greek/Jewish literature some centuries afterwards.
Seems to indicate it was the "original" Nazareth.
> You refer to the term "Nazarene" which was used to describe
> Jesus and the Hebrew Christians. "Nazarite" was also used.
That's the word I was looking for, because the two Greek words are
rendered as two words in English as well.
> The problem is that the wonderful story of Joseph and Mary (pregnant)
> travelling to Bethlehem for the census does not make sense. For a
> census, the best thing to do is stay where you are.
Of course, but Jesus had to be born in the city of David, at least
according to Scripture. Saying that Bethlehem was His birthplace
(whether it's historically correct or not) means expressing a
theological truth - which might not necessarily be identical with the
historical truth.
DH
> Bernard
Daniel Hoehr
ears and going "Nananananaaaanaaaaa --I can't hear yooooouuuuu":
Mark Johnson wrote:
> I see
MJ
> trolling, again - and obsessed as ever, with myself:
> Just you, DH.
> Just you, DH.
> He was a carpenter
> He was a carpenter.
> He was a carpenter.
> Just you, DH.
> He was God.
> He was God.
> Pee.
This has almost poetical value.
DH
Mark Johnson
>According to the NT Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the
>Great,King of Judea who died in 4 BC. The purpose of a census in Roman
>times was for taxation (poll tax?), but although Judea was a vassal
>state of Rome, the people would not be taxed directly, hence no
>census.
>There is a record of a census in 6 AD. Presumably the NT Greek writers
>ca 100 years later wanted to assert that Joseph was of Royal Lineage.
But there was a census, just as described. And Joseph was, as you say.
The very motive for the trip, had it been false, or "added" later,
would not have stood well with those who were first generation
descendants of eyewitnesses. This was a major event in that time, in
that place.
>There are accounts of a marriage in the NT, but not of Joseph. When
>he noticed that Mary was pregnant, he was going to "put her away", but
>was persuaded by an angel in a dream that God was the father of the
>child. Odd!
Not only odd, utterly unique in all of history.
>It seems that Joseph kept Mary in his household together with his
>other wife or wives
Joseph had only one wife.
>as Jesus had brothers and probably sisters.
No, he did not. This is an ancient controversy, long ago explained -
apparently not to your satisfaction.
Not to fear, DH - your correspondent - will surely humor you. Just
make sure to call him . . wise teacher . . on occasion, and he won't
go ballistic on you.
Peace.
--------------------
. . . "art" inspired by nothing
fades to nothingness soon enough.
[Michelle Malkin, 24 NOV 2000
(discussing Marilyn Manson)]
SumBuny
SumBuny
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
>
> I see DH trolling, again - and obsessed as ever, with myself:
>
> >"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
>
> >> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll in this newsgroup
> >> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter". Since
> >> context matters, our 'super-expert' on the life of Christ came up with
> >> that maybe because he wanted to convince SumBuny (and probably
> >> himself) that Jesus, being the son of a mere "carpenter"
>
> Just you, DH. I never said - mere - carpenter.
>
> That's how you see it.
>
> >> means have "taught"
>
> Just you, DH. That's how you see it. I said no such thing.
>
>
> >> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
> >> or, at most, debated with them
>
> Taught as one Who knew, so much to enrage the 'experts' nearby. That's
> not something kids that age did - unless you just don't see it that
> way.
Apparently MJ has never spent time in a classroom...teachers often get
surprised, annoyed, and even angered by what kids say these days...even
while they keep their emotions in check...I wonder how much time MJ spends
around teens and pre-teens--apparently not much, or else he would know that
this is true...
We are still waiting for the Chapter:verse that states that Jesus *taught*
and did not merely ask/answer questions like any other *student*...
>
> >> So the area where Jesus grew up was rich and we have good reasons to
> >> assume that we're not dealing with the son of a poor carpenter
>
> Just you, DH. You're the only one here who introduced the word, poor.
> That's how you see people who work with their hands - poor? If so,
> that's all you, DH.
But *you* are the one who was insisting that the family of Joseph was
uneducated...
>
>
> >> Jesus, as the oldest ... well..... son of Joseph, was destined to take
> >> over his father's business, as it was the tradition in those days. The
> >> gospels (except for Luke) are remarkably quiet about what Jesus did
> >> before he was about 30. It is very likely that he worked in his
> >> father's trade, got used to the business and learned the necessary
> >> skills, not only in the craft but also the business aspect of it.
>
> He was God. God knows this stuff.
>
> You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
> You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Jesus was born knowing
everything, that He was speaking as an adult when he was a newborn? That He
did not experience life as a *human* as well as being Divine?
>
>
> >> And we can also assume that Jesus was educated accordingly. His native
> >> language was Aramaic, but since the trade language was Greek, he could
> >> have only survived in the business with a good knowledge of Greek. As
> >> a Jew, whose family could afford religious education, He must have
> >> also learned Hebrew (remember: Jesus was also *human*
>
> You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
> fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last bit?
You seem to think He was only Divine....
>
>
> >> the Temple of Jerusalem, but more the fact that He was a bright boy
> >> with an inquisitive mind who had already received a good religious
> >> education.
>
> He was God. That was God, teaching in the Second Temple, in a
> Temple-based Judaism. So are ya, or aren't ya? Arian, that is.
He is God *and* human....
Buny
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:8vr110tukejc0of2p...@4ax.com...
>> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
>> I see DH trolling, again - and obsessed as ever, with myself:
>> >"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> >news:400CDB19...@myrealbox.com...
>> >> I can't find the post anymore, but a certain troll in this newsgroup
>> >> seems to have a new mantra, namely "the son of a carpenter". Since
>> >> context matters, our 'super-expert' on the life of Christ came up with
>> >> that maybe because he wanted to convince SumBuny (and probably
>> >> himself) that Jesus, being the son of a mere "carpenter"
>> Just you, DH. I never said - mere - carpenter.
>> That's how you see it.
>> >> means have "taught"
>> Just you, DH. That's how you see it. I said no such thing.
>> >> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
>> >> or, at most, debated with them
>> Taught as one Who knew, so much to enrage the 'experts' nearby. That's
>> not something kids that age did - unless you just don't see it that
>> way.
>Apparently MJ has never spent time in a classroom...teachers often get
>surprised, annoyed, and even angered by what kids say these days.
That wasn't what angered them. He taught as someone Who knew. Kids
don't normally talk like that. You're just not reading, 'sum', or else
you have no heart.
>We are still waiting for the Chapter:verse that states that Jesus *taught*
You're . . still waiting? I didn't realize you had challenged
Scriptures.
It's in-the-Bible, 'sum'. "And all that heard him were astonished at
his wisdom and his answers."
>and did not merely ask/answer questions like any other *student*.
But He wasn't like "any other". That's the whole point. See above.
'Sum', do you believe that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was fully God, as
well as fully Man?
Do you really?
>> >> So the area where Jesus grew up was rich and we have good reasons to
>> >> assume that we're not dealing with the son of a poor carpenter
>> Just you, DH. You're the only one here who introduced the word, poor.
>> That's how you see people who work with their hands - poor? If so,
>> that's all you, DH.
>But *you* are the one who was insisting that the family of Joseph was
>uneducated.
I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
carpenter. DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>> He was God. God knows this stuff.
>> You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
>> You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
>Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Jesus was born knowing
>everything
It's a Mystery. But it's something else, as you prefer, to pretend
that Our Lord knew nothing save for what everyone else naturally
knows, or learns. He was fully God. And that makes you uncomfortable,
doesn't it? It doesn't allow for naturalistic, evolutionary,
materialistic explanation - which is what you CRs like. Am I right?
I'm right, aren't I? So . . do you, 'sum', believe that Our Lord, and
Savior, was both fully God, and fully Man? Think about it, before you
answer. See if you're on the wrong side of Athanasius, here, had you
been born back when.
>> You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
>> fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last bit?
>You seem to think He was only Divine.
I've said, repeatedly, that I confess what The Church teaches - Our
Lord and Savior was both fully God, and fully Man.
Don't put your heresies off on me. Deal with them yourself. Fess up.
Face what it is 30+ years of 'reform' ends up teaching you!
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------
It is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all,
and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain.
Dracula, Bram Stoker, 1897, Ch. 14, Dr. Seward's Diary, Van Helsing, 26 SEP
SumBuny
> "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:8vr110tukejc0of2p...@4ax.com...
> >> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
> >> >> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
> >> >> or, at most, debated with them
>
> >> Taught as one Who knew, so much to enrage the 'experts' nearby. That's
> >> not something kids that age did - unless you just don't see it that
> >> way.
>
> >Apparently MJ has never spent time in a classroom...teachers often get
> >surprised, annoyed, and even angered by what kids say these days.
>
> That wasn't what angered them. He taught as someone Who knew. Kids
> don't normally talk like that. You're just not reading, 'sum', or else
> you have no heart.
>
>
> >We are still waiting for the Chapter:verse that states that Jesus
*taught*
>
> You're . . still waiting? I didn't realize you had challenged
> Scriptures.
>
> It's in-the-Bible, 'sum'. "And all that heard him were astonished at
> his wisdom and his answers."
This says *nothing* about "teaching"...teachers today are also often
astonished with intelligent children...
Where does it say in the Bilbe that Jesus *taught*???
>
>
> >and did not merely ask/answer questions like any other *student*.
>
> But He wasn't like "any other". That's the whole point. See above.
> 'Sum', do you believe that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was fully God, as
> well as fully Man?
>
> Do you really?
I do...you seem to forget the "fully Man" part....
>
>
> >> >> So the area where Jesus grew up was rich and we have good reasons to
> >> >> assume that we're not dealing with the son of a poor carpenter
>
> >> Just you, DH. You're the only one here who introduced the word, poor.
> >> That's how you see people who work with their hands - poor? If so,
> >> that's all you, DH.
>
> >But *you* are the one who was insisting that the family of Joseph was
> >uneducated.
>
> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
> carpenter.
OK...what does that have to do with your amazement that an educated, bright
child can surprise His elders with His intellect? You brought up "Jesus was
the son of a carpenter" when the issue of His education was broght up--what
did you mean to imply, then?
> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
Why did you bring this up, then? What were you trying to say about Him?
>
>
> >> He was God. God knows this stuff.
>
> >> You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
> >> You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
>
> >Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Jesus was born knowing
> >everything
>
> It's a Mystery.
Do you *believe*? Or are you admitting that you do not know...
> But it's something else, as you prefer, to pretend
> that Our Lord knew nothing save for what everyone else naturally
> knows, or learns. He was fully God. And that makes you uncomfortable,
> doesn't it? It doesn't allow for naturalistic, evolutionary,
> materialistic explanation - which is what you CRs like. Am I right?
>
> I'm right, aren't I? So . . do you, 'sum', believe that Our Lord, and
> Savior, was both fully God, and fully Man? Think about it, before you
> answer. See if you're on the wrong side of Athanasius, here, had you
> been born back when.
I believe that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man...I discuss both
sides..you refuse to discuss the human side...
>
>
> >> You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
> >> fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last bit?
>
> >You seem to think He was only Divine.
>
> I've said, repeatedly, that I confess what The Church teaches - Our
> Lord and Savior was both fully God, and fully Man.
OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man...what does
it mean that Jesus also has a fully human aspect?
Buny
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk (bernard connor) wrote:
>
> >According to the NT Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the
> >Great,King of Judea who died in 4 BC. The purpose of a census in Roman
> >times was for taxation (poll tax?), but although Judea was a vassal
> >state of Rome, the people would not be taxed directly, hence no
> >census.
>
> >There is a record of a census in 6 AD. Presumably the NT Greek writers
> >ca 100 years later wanted to assert that Joseph was of Royal Lineage.
>
> But there was a census, just as described. And Joseph was, as you say.
>
> The very motive for the trip, had it been false, or "added" later,
> would not have stood well with those who were first generation
> descendants of eyewitnesses. This was a major event in that time, in
> that place.
>
> >There are accounts of a marriage in the NT, but not of Joseph. When
> >he noticed that Mary was pregnant, he was going to "put her away", but
> >was persuaded by an angel in a dream that God was the father of the
> >child. Odd!
>
> Not only odd, utterly unique in all of history.
>
> >It seems that Joseph kept Mary in his household together with his
> >other wife or wives
>
> Joseph had only one wife.
>
But they weren't legally attached when the Holy Spirit knocked
her up....
Paul
bernard connor
> bernard connor wrote:
>
> > I am aware that archaeological excavations have found "urban remains"
> > near present day Nazareth, but I am not aware that it has proved to be
> > Nazareth.
>
> Well, there was a town in the time of Christ, which is mentioned in
> the gospels and in Greek/Jewish literature some centuries afterwards.
> Seems to indicate it was the "original" Nazareth.
>
> > You refer to the term "Nazarene" which was used to describe
> > Jesus and the Hebrew Christians. "Nazarite" was also used.
>
> That's the word I was looking for, because the two Greek words are
> rendered as two words in English as well.
>
> > The problem is that the wonderful story of Joseph and Mary (pregnant)
> > travelling to Bethlehem for the census does not make sense. For a
> > census, the best thing to do is stay where you are.
>
> Of course, but Jesus had to be born in the city of David, at least
> according to Scripture. Saying that Bethlehem was His birthplace
> (whether it's historically correct or not) means expressing a
> theological truth - which might not necessarily be identical with the
> historical truth.
>
> DH
>
> > Bernard
I fail to understand how there can be any difference between
historical and theological truth.
Clearly the Bethlehem story is fiction, but it is wonderful fiction.
Bernard
Daniel Hoehr
Mark Johnson schrieb:
> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
> Holy Family were penniless, or something.
I see MJ still finds it difficult to read and understand what is
supposed to be his first language. Or he didn't read my post.
Or he's a lying shitbag.
The choice is his . . . here.
> Face what is Pee.
That sums it up neatly, MJ
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:2q3310hag2jbsc1dd...@4ax.com...
>> "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
>> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8vr110tukejc0of2p...@4ax.com...
>> >> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
>> >> >> the "didaskoloi" questions like inquisitive children do at that age,
>> >> >> or, at most, debated with them
>> >> Taught as one Who knew, so much to enrage the 'experts' nearby. That's
>> >> not something kids that age did - unless you just don't see it that
>> >> way.
>> >Apparently MJ has never spent time in a classroom...teachers often get
>> >surprised, annoyed, and even angered by what kids say these days.
>> That wasn't what angered them. He taught as someone Who knew. Kids
>> don't normally talk like that. You're just not reading, 'sum', or else
>> you have no heart.
>> >We are still waiting for the Chapter:verse that states that Jesus
>*taught*
>> You're . . still waiting? I didn't realize you had challenged
>> Scriptures.
>> It's in-the-Bible, 'sum'. "And all that heard him were astonished at
>> his wisdom and his answers."
>This says *nothing* about "teaching"
'sum', you're not getting this, are you?
>> >and did not merely ask/answer questions like any other *student*.
>> But He wasn't like "any other". That's the whole point. See above.
>> 'Sum', do you believe that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was fully God, as
>> well as fully Man?
>> Do you really?
>I do...you seem to forget the "fully Man" part.
No, I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the
hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
Well?
>> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
>> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
>> carpenter.
>OK...what does that have to do with your amazement that an educated, bright
>child can surprise His elders with His intellect? You brought up "Jesus was
>the son of a carpenter" when the issue of His education was broght up
When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
them.
See, here's your problem, yet again. You're blind, 'sum'. You're
arrogant. You're uncharitable. You thrive on hypocrisy. And the light
of Faith doesn't touch you. So when you read Scriptures, it goes right
over your head. It means nothing to you. You can't make sense of it.
You're not Catholic.
And don't we both know it.
>> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
>> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>Why did you bring this up, then?
I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
carpenter.
Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
>> >> He was God. God knows this stuff.
>> >> You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
>> >> You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
>> >Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Jesus was born knowing
>> >everything
>> It's a Mystery.
>Do you *believe*?
It's a Mystery. But all Catholics - if not Catholic Reformed, or
whatever you'll eventually become in the great one-world religion -
confess that Our Lord and Savior was fully God, fully Man, and that
the OT was FULFILLED in the new.
You know, while this is completely out of your league, and over your
head, and the rest, I wonder if this is where JP II finally crossed
the line. Maybe Tom Vick IS right? I always said it would be an error
of ecumenism, that he couldn't talk his way out of. Does he believe
the old covenants are still in force, I wonder? Is that why the Jews
need no longer convert to Catholicism?
See, you don't get that. But Catholics will. And I wonder what JP II
would say, by way of clarifying his remarks? I've seen nothing of that
sort.
>> But it's something else, as you prefer, to pretend
>> that Our Lord knew nothing save for what everyone else naturally
>> knows, or learns. He was fully God. And that makes you uncomfortable,
>> doesn't it? It doesn't allow for naturalistic, evolutionary,
>> materialistic explanation - which is what you CRs like. Am I right?
>> I'm right, aren't I? So . . do you, 'sum', believe that Our Lord, and
>> Savior, was both fully God, and fully Man? Think about it, before you
>> answer. See if you're on the wrong side of Athanasius, here, had you
>> been born back when.
>I believe that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
No you don't. But the question is, are you a semi-Arian, an Arian, or
something else, among your many heresies? That I don't know.
>> >> You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
>> >> fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last bit?
>> >You seem to think He was only Divine.
>> I've said, repeatedly, that I confess what The Church teaches - Our
>> Lord and Savior was both fully God, and fully Man.
>OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
It means that He was and is fully God and fully Man. To explain that
in the detail your prefer, and stamp it with certitude where not
discovered in Revelation, is the classic path to heresy - which you've
taken.
Peace.
-----------------------------------
Because, you jackass, it allows us to
meditate more fully on the life of Christ.
[Tony Miller, msgid:slrnaqn78...@callisto.jtan.com]
Her Royal Spiffiness, Princess Salome
<dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mark Johnson schrieb:
>
>> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>> Holy Family were penniless, or something.
>
>I see MJ still finds it difficult to read and understand what is
>supposed to be his first language.
Smart Money (TM) says that language is not his first language.
>Or he didn't read my post.
>
>Or he's a lying shitbag.
I wonder if Alberich could give us the odds on this bet.
>The choice is his . . . here.
Don't project.
Alan Ferris
<dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Why though would it be bad even if they were penniless? Jesus spent
many hours teaching that such people were closer to god than those who
were rich. I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.....ah yes, Jesus
forgot to speak in Latin.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Tony Miller
And I could repeatedly say I'm the King of Siam. That makes it about as
true as your claim that you're Catholic.
> hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
> and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
> a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
So if you understood that Jesus was fully man, why do you persist in
giving him very "unmanlike" attributes as a human?
> mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
> are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
> happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
> Well?
Well you deny the authority of the Pope. That makes you . . . ummm . . .
Protestant.
>>> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
>>> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
>>> carpenter.
>
>>OK...what does that have to do with your amazement that an educated, bright
>>child can surprise His elders with His intellect? You brought up "Jesus was
>>the son of a carpenter" when the issue of His education was broght up
>
> When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
> mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
> them.
You still need to provide chapter and verse. You can even provide quotes
from some of your saints if you want. But proof by blatant assertion just
won't work.
> See, here's your problem, yet again. You're blind, 'sum'. You're
> arrogant. You're uncharitable. You thrive on hypocrisy. And the light
> of Faith doesn't touch you. So when you read Scriptures, it goes right
> over your head. It means nothing to you. You can't make sense of it.
> You're not Catholic.
>
> And don't we both know it.
Wow!!! We have a major projection moment here... In full IMax with
surround sound.
>>> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>>> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
>>> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>
>>Why did you bring this up, then?
>
> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
> carpenter.
>
> Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
And the projection show continues.
>>> >> He was God. God knows this stuff.
>
>>> >> You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
>>> >> You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
>
>>> >Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Jesus was born knowing
>>> >everything
>
>>> It's a Mystery.
>
>>Do you *believe*?
>
> It's a Mystery. But all Catholics - if not Catholic Reformed, or
> whatever you'll eventually become in the great one-world religion -
> confess that Our Lord and Savior was fully God, fully Man, and that
> the OT was FULFILLED in the new.
>
> You know, while this is completely out of your league, and over your
> head, and the rest, I wonder if this is where JP II finally crossed
> the line. Maybe Tom Vick IS right? I always said it would be an error
> of ecumenism, that he couldn't talk his way out of. Does he believe
> the old covenants are still in force, I wonder? Is that why the Jews
> need no longer convert to Catholicism?
C'mon, Mark. Be a man. Take the final step into full schism. You are
dancing around it with your comments of "perhaps the pope is wrong", and
"he is the worse pope in history" etc.
Get rid of the cowardly "perhaps" (which you think might save you at the
throne of God) and take the full plunge.
Either be a full fledge 'Traditionalist' or not. Just stop 'hedging your
bets'.
> See, you don't get that. But Catholics will. And I wonder what JP II
> would say, by way of clarifying his remarks? I've seen nothing of that
> sort.
Because you don't listen to him if he did.
>>> But it's something else, as you prefer, to pretend
>>> that Our Lord knew nothing save for what everyone else naturally
>>> knows, or learns. He was fully God. And that makes you uncomfortable,
>>> doesn't it? It doesn't allow for naturalistic, evolutionary,
>>> materialistic explanation - which is what you CRs like. Am I right?
>
>>> I'm right, aren't I? So . . do you, 'sum', believe that Our Lord, and
>>> Savior, was both fully God, and fully Man? Think about it, before you
>>> answer. See if you're on the wrong side of Athanasius, here, had you
>>> been born back when.
>
>>I believe that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>
> No you don't. But the question is, are you a semi-Arian, an Arian, or
> something else, among your many heresies? That I don't know.
You mean like the heresy of denying the primacy of the Pope? Oh, that's
right, you hedged your bets with the cowardly "maybe" or "perhaps".
>>> >> You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
>>> >> fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last bit?
>
>>> >You seem to think He was only Divine.
>
>>> I've said, repeatedly, that I confess what The Church teaches - Our
>>> Lord and Savior was both fully God, and fully Man.
>
>>OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>
> It means that He was and is fully God and fully Man. To explain that
> in the detail your prefer, and stamp it with certitude where not
> discovered in Revelation, is the classic path to heresy - which you've
> taken.
Being fully man means to take on all the frailties of man. That means
not being able to draw on his omnicience. Stumbling and resisting
temptation like the rest of us.
> Because, you jackass, it allows us to
> meditate more fully on the life of Christ.
>
> [Tony Miller, msgid:slrnaqn78...@callisto.jtan.com]
Hee haw, Mark.
-Tony
--
For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/
"Rome has spoken, the debate is ended." -- St. Augustine
Mark Johnson
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:14:52 +0100, Daniel Hoehr
><dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>Mark Johnson schrieb:
>>> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>>> Holy Family were penniless, or something.
>>I see MJ still finds it difficult to read and understand what is
>>supposed to be his first language. Or he didn't read my post.
>>Or he's a lying shitbag.
>>The choice is his . . . here.
>>That sums it up neatly, MJ
Sums up the intellectual honesty of DH, most certainly.
>Why though would it be bad even if they were penniless?
They weren't, not as Our Lord lived with Mary and Joseph, and not as
He began His mission, as people contributed - remember the complaint
of Judas?
>many hours teaching that such people were closer to god than those who
>were rich.
They weren't rich.
>I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.
I don't. But can you say the same? You like to accuse. But you
project. You accuse yourself, and are too blind to see something so
obvious.
Peace.
-----------------------------------
Alan Ferris
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.
>
>I don't. But can you say the same? You like to accuse. But you
>project. You accuse yourself, and are too blind to see something so
>obvious.
Projection, thy name is Johnson.
When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself publicly?
Daniel Hoehr
bernard connor wrote:
> I fail to understand how there can be any difference between
> historical and theological truth.
The term "theological truth" may be, admittedly, a bit clumsy. Try
"theological message" instead, which, of course, was for the writer
and the community he wrote for the theological truth.
Take the books of the Old Testament for example. For Israel history
was at the same time God's revelation to His chosen people and His
works for and on them. That's what I mean by theological truth, which,
as we know from extra-Biblical sources and archaeology, may not be
identical with what really happened (that would be historical truth).
> Clearly the Bethlehem story is fiction, but it is wonderful fiction.
And there you go. From a historian's point of view, it is fiction and
everything we know about the events from history, the census is
fiction as well. But why did the gospel writers, or those who prepared
the sources they relied on, "invented" the census and the birth in
Bethlehem? One could go and say "you see, they made it all up."
What we have to take into account here is an ancient tradition of
religious literature, which the gospels also belong to. None of the
authors (and there is certainly more than one writer behind each name)
were eye-witnesses. They wrote their gospels for their own early
Christian communities, which were composed of people from different
cultural, social and religious backgrounds. They themselves relied on
sources and, in the case of the synoptics, each other (Mark relöied on
"Q", Matthew and Luke relied on "Q" and Mark, but what NT exegesis
calls the Synoptic Promlem is really a tricky matter).
They had messages they wanted to bring across and one of the messages
was that Jesus was the King of Israel (not in a political, but in a
spiritual sense) and therefore tradition made Bethlehem his
birthplace. To our modern black-and-white thinking this may seem a
blunt lie, to the people then it was simply a way of expressing that
Jesus was the spiritual successor to King David. That is what I meant
by theological truth.
But even today we are moved by the story, it affects our religious
believes. I don't know whether you are religious, Bernhard, but you
seem to be interested in history and you are familiar with what
historians have to say on that matter (and there seems to be a broad
consensus). But still you wrote above:
> Clearly the Bethlehem story is fiction, but it is wonderful fiction.
So even to our modern minds the story of Bethlehem has still something
to offer and it most certainly has not lost its "charm". Shows that
the ancient writers, whose literary techniques and ways to express
their messages, are somehow lost on us, their modern
readers/listeners, still did a wonderful job.
Personally (and I can only speak for myself here), in spite of or even
because of years of studying Biblical exegesis, my belief that those
writings are divinely inspirited has really grown. The thing is that
we must not take what is written in the Bible for exact historical
accounts of events how they happend. The Bible is not an objective
history book and that is not what the Bible wants to be. We have to
take the contexts (historical, social, religious, politicla and
cultural) into account to gain a deeper understanding of a Biblical text.
> Bernard
Daniel
Daniel Hoehr
Tony Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:47 -0800, Mark Johnson
> <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>No, I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the
>
> And I could repeatedly say I'm the King of Siam. That makes it about as
> true as your claim that you're Catholic.
Or somebody could just claim that he's one of the two witnesses in
Revelation......
>>hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
>>and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
>>a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
>
>
> So if you understood that Jesus was fully man, why do you persist in
> giving him very "unmanlike" attributes as a human?
>
>
>>mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
>>are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
>>happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
>>Well?
>
>
> Well you deny the authority of the Pope. That makes you . . . ummm . . .
> Protestant.
What's more, Marcus Noster Filius Iohannis questions (to put it
mildly) the Transsubstantiation in the Novus Ordo Missae. That makes
him Protestant . . . here.
>>When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
>>mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
>>them.
>
> You still need to provide chapter and verse. You can even provide quotes
> from some of your saints if you want. But proof by blatant assertion just
> won't work.
We are all familiar with Markie's disdain for looking things up and
providing cites (unless they -- seemingly -- suit his agenda). You'd
better add this one to the Frequently Avoided Questions on your
fabulous webpage dedicated to our Markie . . . here.
>>See, here's your problem, yet again. You're blind, 'sum'. You're
>>arrogant. You're uncharitable. You thrive on hypocrisy. And the light
>>of Faith doesn't touch you. So when you read Scriptures, it goes right
>>over your head. It means nothing to you. You can't make sense of it.
>>You're not Catholic.
>>
>>And don't we both know it.
>
> Wow!!! We have a major projection moment here... In full IMax with
> surround sound.
Now let's sit back and enjoy the joy.... popcorn, Tony?
<snip>
>>Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
>
> And the projection show continues.
Markie seems to be in top form . . . here.
<snip>
>>You know, while this is completely out of your league, and over your
>>head, and the rest, I wonder if this is where JP II finally crossed
>>the line. Maybe Tom Vick IS right? I always said it would be an error
>>of ecumenism, that he couldn't talk his way out of. Does he believe
>>the old covenants are still in force, I wonder? Is that why the Jews
>>need no longer convert to Catholicism?
>
> C'mon, Mark. Be a man. Take the final step into full schism. You are
> dancing around it with your comments of "perhaps the pope is wrong", and
> "he is the worse pope in history" etc.
>
> Get rid of the cowardly "perhaps" (which you think might save you at the
> throne of God) and take the full plunge.
And once Markie is getting rid of his abject cowardice, me might also
consider that replying to someone in the follow-ups makes him a real
coward.
> Either be a full fledge 'Traditionalist' or not. Just stop 'hedging your
> bets'.
Good one, Tony!
<snip>
>> [...] the question is, are you a semi-Arian, an Arian, or
>>something else, among your many heresies? That I don't know.
>
> You mean like the heresy of denying the primacy of the Pope? Oh, that's
> right, you hedged your bets with the cowardly "maybe" or "perhaps".
Have you noticed, Tony, that Markie has been using the word "arian"
quite a lot recently? He surely knows that the arians denied that
Jesus was God but fully human. He picked that up somewhere in his
selective reading, I'm sure. By accusing us (directly or indirectly --
indirectly because he's a bloody coward or fears that he might be
nailed down on some interesting historical issues) of arianism, he
wants to make himself look like the One And Only Real Catholic [TM] .
. . here in these ngs, thus, of course, turning away the attention
from his own schism and heresies. That's our Markie -- a dishonest
coward, a schism-screamin', heresy-whorin' ass-sucking dork, in short
(to quote another great poster . . . here in these ngs), a "pimple on
the ass of humanity whose time for draining has come."
<snip>
>>It means that He was and is fully God and fully Man. To explain that
>>in the detail your prefer, and stamp it with certitude where not
>>discovered in Revelation, is the classic path to heresy - which you've
>>taken.
>
> Being fully man means to take on all the frailties of man. That means
> not being able to draw on his omnicience. Stumbling and resisting
> temptation like the rest of us.
Well-said, Tony. Jesus, as a man, also knew fear (cf. Mark 14:33), but
was obviously not quite sure when fig trees bear fruit (cf. Mark 11:12
- 14).
DH
Daniel Hoehr
Alan Ferris wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:14:52 +0100, Daniel Hoehr
> <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Mark Johnson schrieb:
>>
>>
>>>DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>>>Holy Family were penniless, or something.
>>
>>I see MJ still finds it difficult to read and understand what is
>>supposed to be his first language. Or he didn't read my post.
>>
>>Or he's a lying shitbag.
>>
>>The choice is his . . . here.
>>
>>
>>>Face what is Pee.
>>
>>That sums it up neatly, MJ
>
>
> Why though would it be bad even if they were penniless? Jesus spent
> many hours teaching that such people were closer to god than those who
> were rich.
True, but one of the points I wanted to make in the original post
(besides exploring the field for myself, making sure I don't forget my
Greek completely, starting a discussion and providing a nice bait for
Markie -- which obviously worked out), was that if Jesus and the
deciples were well-off, they leaving their, well, upper-middle class
lives behind and chosing poverty, they took a bigger step that if they
were poor in the first place. Poor people talking about how poverty
brings you closer to God is one thing; well-off people choosing
poverty out of their free will in oder to be closer to God is quite
another. And that's what I personally got out of exploring that area
for myself.
> I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.....ah yes, Jesus
> forgot to speak in Latin.
....... and provide the facing pages for Mark Johnson.
> --
> Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
DH
Daniel Hoehr
Salome, Princess of Piquant Panaceas wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:51 +0100, Daniel Hoehr
> <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>Salome, Mistress of Decapitation wrote:
>>>Brilliant post, DH. I have nothing to add. I just wanted to see it go
>>>past again.
>>
>>Thanks, mate!
>
> Cheesecake?
Oh yeah, why not indeed?
Sumbuny
"bernard connor" <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6bc4e164.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote in message
news:<3ZXPb.7451$ZJ1.540@lakeread01>...
> > "bernard connor" <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:6bc4e164.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > I am aware that archaeological excavations have found "urban remains"
> > > near present day Nazareth, but I am not aware that it has proved to be
> > > Jesus and the Hebrew Christians. "Nazarite" was also used.
> > >
> > > travelling to Bethlehem for the census does not make sense. For a
> > > census, the best thing to do is stay where you are.
> >
> >
Jesus
> > bar Joses, has a theory about this one. The couple had to go to the
city of
> > Joseph's ancestors. That was Bethlehem. No man in his right mind would
> > take his pregnant wife on a dangerous journey to be among
strangers--death
> > in childbirth was so common that this was a scary time for a woman.
BUT--if
> > they were going to a place where there was *family*, then Joseph and
Mary
> > were probably doing what so many of us do now--give birth among family,
and
> > have the help there.
> >
> > Off the top of my head, I cannot remember where they were travelling
> > *from*...but how far was it to Bethlehem?
> >
> Assuming the NT version is correct and Nazreth existed, then they came
> from there. Both places are shown in modern atlases so you can measue
> the
> distance easily.
I looked at the maps on my Bible, and it looks to be (as the crow flies)
around 75 miles. I do not know how far one can walk in a day (or ride a
donkey), but working with the "4 miles an hour" used for aerobic exercise,
let's suppose that they were averaging about 3 miles an hour...perhaps
somewhere around 10 miles a day. So in about a week's time of travel, they
could have gone from Nazareth to Bethlehem.
Scripture does not specifically say that the birth was imminent (nor that it
was full-term)...so perhaps the couple made the journey a month or so before
the expected due date. They arrived at the home of the extended family,
which was overcrowded, and made up pallets in the "spare room" which is
normally used for livestock in bad weather. Since the Bible does not
specifically say that Mary went into labor that night (it only says, "While
they were there the days of her confinement were completed"--Luke 2:6), it
is possible that they were there, settling in, for a while--that she was not
in labor during the trip, as so many think.
I am not saying that this is what happened--but given the scarcity of
specifics in the Bible, it is *possible* that this is what happened.
Buny
Sumbuny
Apparently I am not...please cite the chapter/verse that says that Jesus was
*teaching* as a child...
>
>
> >> >and did not merely ask/answer questions like any other *student*.
>
> >> But He wasn't like "any other". That's the whole point. See above.
> >> 'Sum', do you believe that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was fully God, as
> >> well as fully Man?
>
> >> Do you really?
>
> >I do...you seem to forget the "fully Man" part.
>
> No, I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the
> hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
> and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
> a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
> mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
> are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
> happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
> Well?
I have never denied that Jesus is fully God and fully Human...I question
whether or not you are accepting of the second half of that nature in Him.
>
>
>
> >> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
> >> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
> >> carpenter.
>
> >OK...what does that have to do with your amazement that an educated,
bright
> >child can surprise His elders with His intellect? You brought up "Jesus
was
> >the son of a carpenter" when the issue of His education was broght up
>
> When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
> mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
> them.
You found it strange that a student who is not both Divine and Human could
suprise his elders with his answers? I mentioned that everyday kids do
that...it is quite common...so then you brought up the "He was the Son of a
carpenter"...I asked what you meant by that comment..
I am *still* waiting for the chapter:verse that says that Jesus "*taught* as
one who knew"...
>
> See, here's your problem, yet again. You're blind, 'sum'. You're
> arrogant. You're uncharitable. You thrive on hypocrisy. And the light
> of Faith doesn't touch you. So when you read Scriptures, it goes right
> over your head. It means nothing to you. You can't make sense of it.
> You're not Catholic.
Hypocricy? I accept that Jesus is fully Divine *and* fully human...do you
accept *both* natures? YOU are obsessing with the Divine and are getting
defensive when the human is pointed out...why?
>
> >> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
> >> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
> >> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>
> >Why did you bring this up, then?
>
> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
> carpenter.
You mean that the average Jewish kid of the time was not receiving any kind
of religious instruction? Come on....how else did they learn about their
faith??? How else was He expected to perform His bar-mitzvah????
As far as surprising/annoying the teachers with His answers...it happens all
the time in school, and in CCD--but you apparently have not been
there...many here have (volunteering in the schools, in CCD classes,
etc)....
>
> Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
LOL...I suppose that this is a cheap shot at my ADHD???? Grasping at straws
("I know I am but what are you?" sounds like you are using the 5-year-old
playground defense)....
>
> >> >> You don't think He was God? I'm asking. If so, you're an Arian, DH.
> >> >> You deal with the Mystery of the Incarnation by denying Godhood.
>
> >> >Just out of curiosity...do you believe that Jesus was born knowing
> >> >everything
>
> >> It's a Mystery.
>
> >Do you *believe*?
>
> It's a Mystery. But all Catholics - if not Catholic Reformed, or
> whatever you'll eventually become in the great one-world religion -
> confess that Our Lord and Savior was fully God, fully Man, and that
> the OT was FULFILLED in the new.
Why do you have such difficulty with the "fully human" aspect? I am *not*
questioning the "fully God"...but you are insisting that He did not act as
one who is also fully human...
>
> You know, while this is completely out of your league, and over your
> head, and the rest, I wonder if this is where JP II finally crossed
> the line. Maybe Tom Vick IS right? I always said it would be an error
> of ecumenism, that he couldn't talk his way out of. Does he believe
> the old covenants are still in force, I wonder? Is that why the Jews
> need no longer convert to Catholicism?
When did that happen? "Is that why the Jews need no longer convert to
Catholicism?"
> >> But it's something else, as you prefer, to pretend
> >> that Our Lord knew nothing save for what everyone else naturally
> >> knows, or learns. He was fully God. And that makes you uncomfortable,
> >> doesn't it? It doesn't allow for naturalistic, evolutionary,
> >> materialistic explanation - which is what you CRs like. Am I right?
>
> >> I'm right, aren't I? So . . do you, 'sum', believe that Our Lord, and
> >> Savior, was both fully God, and fully Man? Think about it, before you
> >> answer. See if you're on the wrong side of Athanasius, here, had you
> >> been born back when.
>
> >I believe that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>
> No you don't. But the question is, are you a semi-Arian, an Arian, or
> something else, among your many heresies? That I don't know.
What is the heresy of not believing in the "fully Man" part? You seem to be
defending that...
>
>
> >> >> You seem to think He was only human. Catholics confess the God-Man,
> >> >> fully Man, fully God. Do you have a lot of trouble with the last
bit?
>
> >> >You seem to think He was only Divine.
>
> >> I've said, repeatedly, that I confess what The Church teaches - Our
> >> Lord and Savior was both fully God, and fully Man.
>
> >OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>
> It means that He was and is fully God and fully Man. To explain that
> in the detail your prefer, and stamp it with certitude where not
> discovered in Revelation, is the classic path to heresy - which you've
> taken.
Ah...you are saying that explaining that Jesus is fully Man as well as fully
God is heresy....what does it mean to insist that He is only fully God?
Buny
Sumbuny
"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc15bs...@home.cigardiary.com...
Somehow I suppose that MJ does not go along with the concept of the Stations
of the Cross, because it shows that Jesus actually *fell down* from His
wounds/fatigue not only once, but *three times*!!!
Buny
Sumbuny
>
>
> Tony Miller wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:47 -0800, Mark Johnson
> > <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> [...] the question is, are you a semi-Arian, an Arian, or
> >>something else, among your many heresies? That I don't know.
> >
> > You mean like the heresy of denying the primacy of the Pope? Oh, that's
> > right, you hedged your bets with the cowardly "maybe" or "perhaps".
>
> Have you noticed, Tony, that Markie has been using the word "arian"
> quite a lot recently? He surely knows that the arians denied that
> Jesus was God but fully human. He picked that up somewhere in his
> selective reading, I'm sure. By accusing us (directly or indirectly --
> indirectly because he's a bloody coward or fears that he might be
> nailed down on some interesting historical issues) of arianism, he
> wants to make himself look like the One And Only Real Catholic [TM] .
> . . here in these ngs, thus, of course, turning away the attention
> from his own schism and heresies. That's our Markie -- a dishonest
> coward, a schism-screamin', heresy-whorin' ass-sucking dork, in short
> (to quote another great poster . . . here in these ngs), a "pimple on
> the ass of humanity whose time for draining has come."
Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism that
adresses this very issue:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
81. Why is Jesus Christ man?
Jesus Christ is man because He is the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary and has
a body and soul like ours.
(a) Although Christ's conception and birth were miraculous, He, like other
men, came into the world as an infant, having Mary for His Mother. Since His
origin from the Blessed Virgin is true generation, Mary is the Mother of
Jesus Christ, who is God, and she is therefore truly the Mother of God.
(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and walked
through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed with
human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance and
error, from all sin and imperfection.
(d) The human soul of Christ could suffer as well as His body. For example,
Christ was sorrowful unto death. In the garden of Gethsemane He said to His
disciples: "My soul is sad, even unto death. Wait here and watch with me"
(Matthew 26:38).
Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is no
evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that (otherwise, why did he not
improve His mother's home to the technology that we have now? I.e., "free
from ignorance" means that Jesus not only knew everything about then, but
everything about *now* and the future--doesn't mean that he paraded such
knowledge)...
IOW, he generall acted like a *human* child....
Buny
Sumbuny
> True, but one of the points I wanted to make in the original post
> (besides exploring the field for myself, making sure I don't forget my
> Greek completely, starting a discussion and providing a nice bait for
> Markie -- which obviously worked out), was that if Jesus and the
> deciples were well-off, they leaving their, well, upper-middle class
> lives behind and chosing poverty, they took a bigger step that if they
> were poor in the first place. Poor people talking about how poverty
> brings you closer to God is one thing; well-off people choosing
> poverty out of their free will in oder to be closer to God is quite
> another. And that's what I personally got out of exploring that area
> for myself.
<nodding> Jesus inherited a carpentry shop from Joseph, Peter *owned* a
fishing boat (my undle was a shrimper--similar deal, he used nets) and had a
thriving business (didn't his brother also work the boat? There were many
who worked that boat), *and* a family (we did hear once about his
wife)...and left them behind...
> > I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.....ah yes, Jesus
> > forgot to speak in Latin.
>
> ....... and provide the facing pages for Mark Johnson.
..in Aramaic...
Buny
Sumbuny
> bernard...@yahoo.co.uk (bernard connor) wrote:
>
> >There are accounts of a marriage in the NT, but not of Joseph. When
> >he noticed that Mary was pregnant, he was going to "put her away", but
> >was persuaded by an angel in a dream that God was the father of the
> >child. Odd!
>
> Not only odd, utterly unique in all of history.
Unique in that he understood that God was the father, or in the fact that
Jospeh married a woman who was carrying another's child?
>
>
> >It seems that Joseph kept Mary in his household together with his
> >other wife or wives
>
> Joseph had only one wife.
There is some speculation that he--being older than the young teenage
Mary--could have been a widower...
>
>
> >as Jesus had brothers and probably sisters.
>
> No, he did not. This is an ancient controversy, long ago explained -
> apparently not to your satisfaction.
If Jospeh had been a widower, it is possible that Jesus had *legal*
siblings...but most people understand that the Aramaic and Greek term for
sibling also meant "kin" (as in cousins or more distant).
>
> Not to fear, DH - your correspondent - will surely humor you. Just
> make sure to call him . . wise teacher . . on occasion, and he won't
> go ballistic on you.
What do we have to call *you* to get that result?
Buny
Sumbuny
"Paul Duca" <toms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4011F646...@comcast.net...
Wasn't betrothal legally binding in that era?
Buny
Mark Johnson
>> 'sum', you're not getting this, are you?
>Apparently I am not...please cite
Yeah. Done that. You just don't get it. In another message in this
very thread you demonstrated not merely the desire to pick n choose
from Catholic teaching, but to literally quote a catechism and then
pick n choose from what you literally quoted. As I said - you just
cain't hep yourself, can ye?
>> >I do...you seem to forget the "fully Man" part.
>> No, I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the
>> hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
>> and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
>> a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
>> mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
>> are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
>> happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
>> Well?
>I have never denied that Jesus is fully God and fully Human.
You pretty much have by dancing around, and picking n choosing, over
this issue that causes you so much distress - that Our Lord was fully
God, as well as fully Man.
>whether or not you are accepting of the second half of that nature in Him.
I've said so, repeatedly. And as I do, on Usenet, I'll just keep
repeating it 100 times over until you finally read the words, or get
bored and go away.
I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the hated
Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord and
Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also a
statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud mystery
of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you are told
you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies happened
to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ. Well?
>> When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
>> mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
>> them.
>You found it strange that a student who is not both Divine and Human could
>suprise his elders with his answers? I mentioned that everyday kids do
>that...it is quite common.
No it's not. Kids don't, or didn't in that day, walk into the Temple,
in a Temple-based Judaism, and astonish and enrage the 'experts' as
One Who knew. I'm sorry - didn't happen, 'sum'. This was an unusual
and unique event in the history of the Second Temple. You just don't
get this stuff.
>so then you brought up the "He was the Son of a
>carpenter"...I asked what you meant by that comment..
It proved more interesting that you and DH read a lot into that, based
on your own prejudice, as I pointed out.
>> See, here's your problem, yet again. You're blind, 'sum'. You're
>> arrogant. You're uncharitable. You thrive on hypocrisy. And the light
>> of Faith doesn't touch you. So when you read Scriptures, it goes right
>> over your head. It means nothing to you. You can't make sense of it.
>> You're not Catholic.
>Hypocricy?
Hypocrisy.
>I accept that Jesus is fully Divine *and* fully human.
But that doesn't appear to be the case. You mouth the words, as the
saying goes. But you don't give the impression of confessing this, as
fact. You have a very Reformed Catholic take on everything - which is
Protestantism. And I tell you that, as a Catholic, on this very
Catholic ng.
>> >> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>> >> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
>> >> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>> >Why did you bring this up, then?
>> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
>> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
>> carpenter.
>You mean that the average Jewish kid of the time was not receiving any kind
>of religious instruction?
Did I say that? Again, that's your misunderstanding of things,
assuming you didn't really mean that as a question, but as an
accusation. Me - when I ask questions, they're questions.
You don't get that, either, do you - 'sum'?
>> Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
>LOL...I suppose that this is a cheap shot at my ADHD?
Just based on what you post, 'sum'. Are you blaming your performance
on some sort of ailment? Is that it?
>> It's a Mystery. But all Catholics - if not Catholic Reformed, or
>> whatever you'll eventually become in the great one-world religion -
>> confess that Our Lord and Savior was fully God, fully Man, and that
>> the OT was FULFILLED in the new.
>Why do you have such difficulty with the "fully human" aspect?
I don't. And if you didn't get this, the first time, as I said - I'll
repeat it . . over and over and over and over again, until you do; or
at least until you read it.
I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the hated
Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord and
Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also a
statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud mystery
of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you are told
you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies happened
to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ. Well?
>I am *not*
Whatever. Look, that's enough for you, now. You show me you can read
just what's above, and we'll take it from there. Fair?
Mark Johnson
>"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:bv0je0$b5bq1$3...@ID-82123.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> True, but one of the points I wanted to make in the original post
>> (besides exploring the field for myself, making sure I don't forget my
>> Greek completely, starting a discussion and providing a nice bait for
>> Markie -- which obviously worked out), was that if Jesus and the
>> deciples were well-off, they leaving their, well, upper-middle class
>> lives behind and chosing poverty, they took a bigger step
DH seems to imagine that he is the very first to examine Holy
Scriptures or consider The Mysteries, the histories, etc.
The arrogance of a lib, like DH, is startling. One can quote the
fathers, encyclicals, the Summa, what have you. And nothing registers
with this guy - except what he 'discovers' all by himself. Bow down
before the 'great teacher', why don't we? or face his wrath if we
should doubt him. Well, some people prefer The Church, to a DH, or any
'reformer'.
><nodding> Jesus inherited a carpentry shop from Joseph
What exactly was in this "carpentry shop"? You seem to know so much
about it? I'm curious. Tell me.
>> > I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.....ah yes, Jesus
>> > forgot to speak in Latin.
>> ....... and provide the facing pages for Mark Johnson.
>..in Aramaic...
>Buny
You still don't get it, 'sum'. DH never will. Maybe you never will,
either. But I have to ask - if that was Our Lord at The Last Supper,
at in The Holy Mass for century after century, if not 'new order',
what does that say about your 'new order'? Remember, the 'reformer'
boasted that The Mass as we knew it, was destroyed. He boasted of that
which supplanted it, namely 'new order', which you consistently
defend.
Mark Johnson
>"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnc15bs...@home.cigardiary.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:47 -0800, Mark Johnson
>> <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> > "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
>> >>OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>> Being fully man means to take on all the frailties of man. That means
>> not being able to draw on his omnicience.
So, Tony, it means what . . again?
Maybe you should elaborate.
>> resisting temptation like the rest of us.
More than this. You really should explain yourself, in some detail.
It'll help you more than than myself, believe me.
>of the Cross, because it shows that Jesus actually *fell down* from His
>wounds/fatigue not only once, but *three times*!!!
>Buny
Same question to you, 'sum'. Do you confess that Our Lord and Saviour
was fully God, and fully Man? Or are you . . . uncomfortable . . .
with either one?
Just be honest. Say what you mean. You'll help yourself by thinking
about it with more than the attention span of a tv viewer.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Mark Johnson
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:25:32 -0800, Mark Johnson
><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Projection, thy name is Johnson.
>When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself publicly?
But I don't project on others. As for posting foolish messages to
Usenet, I'll leave that to you. Cause you know what they say about
projection, and you might want to read this:
[His] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called PROJECTION.
It is a technique by which the ego of an individual defends itself
against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or characteristics by denying
their existence in himself while he attributes them to others.
Innumerable examples of this mechanism could be cited in [his] case
...
From an old report, with perhaps odd Freudian overtones, but
interesting in what it suggests about Usenet, today, and libralism and
phony 'reform', in general.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Mark Johnson
>Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism that
>adresses this very issue:
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
>(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and walked
>through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
>(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed with
>human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance and
>error, from all sin and imperfection.
>Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
>intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is no
>evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that
So you not only pick and choose from Holy Scriptures, you now quote
and then pick n choose from this catechism?
You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
It's all you.
>improve His mother's home to the technology that we have now? I.e., "free
>from ignorance" means that Jesus not only knew everything about then, but
>everything about *now* and the future--doesn't mean that he paraded such
>knowledge
'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
astonished the Temple 'experts'.
Peace.
---------------------------------------------------------------
People don't go to church, but they feel better that it's there.
- Sir Humphrey, Yes Prime Minister, The Patron of the Arts
Her Royal Spiffiness, Princess Salome
<dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>Salome, Princess of Piquant Panaceas wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:33:51 +0100, Daniel Hoehr
>> <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>Salome, Mistress of Decapitation wrote:
>
>>>>Brilliant post, DH. I have nothing to add. I just wanted to see it go
>>>>past again.
>>>
>>>Thanks, mate!
>>
>> Cheesecake?
>
>Oh yeah, why not indeed?
Because you need to file your report first on the GFH event, that's
why not.
Alan Ferris
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Alan Ferris <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:25:32 -0800, Mark Johnson
>><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>Projection, thy name is Johnson.
>>When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself publicly?
>
>But I don't project on others. As for posting foolish messages to
>Usenet, I'll leave that to you. Cause you know what they say about
>projection, and you might want to read this:
So all this silly claims you have made about me are what Mark.....oh
yes, just you being hypocritical. You can project but others are
wrong...mmm reminds me of a 5 year old defending it behaviour.
>[His] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called PROJECTION.
>It is a technique by which the ego of an individual defends itself
>against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or characteristics by denying
>their existence in himself while he attributes them to others.
>Innumerable examples of this mechanism could be cited in [his] case
Indeed it reads perfectly when you do this:
>[Mark Johnson] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called PROJECTION.
>It is a technique by which the ego of an individual defends itself
>against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or characteristics by denying
>their existence in himself while he attributes them to others.
>Innumerable examples of this mechanism could be cited in [Mark Jophnson] case
Alan Ferris
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>You still don't get it, 'sum'. DH never will. Maybe you never will,
>either. But I have to ask - if that was Our Lord at The Last Supper,
>at in The Holy Mass for century after century, if not 'new order',
>what does that say about your 'new order'? Remember, the 'reformer'
>boasted that The Mass as we knew it, was destroyed. He boasted of that
>which supplanted it, namely 'new order', which you consistently
>defend.
Ok I am at a loss. I have run this past three people and nobody can
guess what he is on about.
Tony Miller
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> 'sum', you're not getting this, are you?
>
>>Apparently I am not...please cite
>
> Yeah. Done that. You just don't get it. In another message in this
> very thread you demonstrated not merely the desire to pick n choose
> from Catholic teaching, but to literally quote a catechism and then
> pick n choose from what you literally quoted. As I said - you just
> cain't hep yourself, can ye?
Then give us the Message-ID where you did that.
>>> >I do...you seem to forget the "fully Man" part.
>
>>> No, I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the
>>> hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
>>> and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
>>> a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
>>> mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
>>> are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
>>> happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
>>> Well?
>
>>I have never denied that Jesus is fully God and fully Human.
>
> You pretty much have by dancing around, and picking n choosing, over
> this issue that causes you so much distress - that Our Lord was fully
> God, as well as fully Man.
And you seem to have a problem with the "fully man" part.
>>whether or not you are accepting of the second half of that nature in Him.
>
> I've said so, repeatedly. And as I do, on Usenet, I'll just keep
> repeating it 100 times over until you finally read the words, or get
> bored and go away.
You'll keep repeating the same tired shit over and over. The same tired
shit that doesn't answer the question posed.
A normal Mark Johnson dialog goes like this.
<Tony> Mark, what is 2+2
<Mark> Cucumber
<Tony> But that makes no sense, Mark.
<Mark> It would if you read what I wrote as I wrote it.
<Tony> But Mark, I asked what 2+2 was. You answered Cucumber. A
vegetable has nothing to do with an arithmetic question.
<Mark> "The mass as we knew it is dead. I didn't say that, one of your
'reformers' said that!
<Tony> Mark, what does the mass have to do with 2+2? Don't you know how
to answer a simple question.
<Mark> Don't project you 'Catholic' you.
<Tony> Mark just answer the question. What is 2+2?
<Mark> Read http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/ImAnEffinfIdiot.htm it's all
there.
...
And so on.
> I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the hated
> Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord and
> Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also a
> statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud mystery
> of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you are told
> you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies happened
> to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ. Well?
Do you deny the manhood of Christ?
>>> When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
>>> mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
>>> them.
>
>>You found it strange that a student who is not both Divine and Human could
>>suprise his elders with his answers? I mentioned that everyday kids do
>>that...it is quite common.
>
> No it's not. Kids don't, or didn't in that day, walk into the Temple,
> in a Temple-based Judaism, and astonish and enrage the 'experts' as
> One Who knew. I'm sorry - didn't happen, 'sum'. This was an unusual
> and unique event in the history of the Second Temple. You just don't
> get this stuff.
What is 'One Who knew'? Where in the Bible did you find that? How about
quoting me a chapter and verse?
>>so then you brought up the "He was the Son of a
>>carpenter"...I asked what you meant by that comment..
>
> It proved more interesting that you and DH read a lot into that, based
> on your own prejudice, as I pointed out.
But you said it like being "the son of a carpenter" made it more
miraculous somehow.
>>> See, here's your problem, yet again. You're blind, 'sum'. You're
>>> arrogant. You're uncharitable. You thrive on hypocrisy. And the light
>>> of Faith doesn't touch you. So when you read Scriptures, it goes right
>>> over your head. It means nothing to you. You can't make sense of it.
>>> You're not Catholic.
>
>>Hypocricy?
>
> Hypocrisy.
Yup, you certainly know all about Hypocrisy don't you.
>>I accept that Jesus is fully Divine *and* fully human.
>
> But that doesn't appear to be the case. You mouth the words, as the
> saying goes. But you don't give the impression of confessing this, as
> fact. You have a very Reformed Catholic take on everything - which is
> Protestantism. And I tell you that, as a Catholic, on this very
> Catholic ng.
It doesn't appear that you accept Jesus as fully human.
>>> >> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
>>> >> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
>>> >> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>
>>> >Why did you bring this up, then?
>
>>> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
>>> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
>>> carpenter.
>
>>You mean that the average Jewish kid of the time was not receiving any kind
>>of religious instruction?
>
> Did I say that? Again, that's your misunderstanding of things,
> assuming you didn't really mean that as a question, but as an
> accusation. Me - when I ask questions, they're questions.
>
> You don't get that, either, do you - 'sum'?
You don't get it.
>>> Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
>
>>LOL...I suppose that this is a cheap shot at my ADHD?
>
> Just based on what you post, 'sum'. Are you blaming your performance
> on some sort of ailment? Is that it?
You can blame yours on some sort of ailment. You must be mentally
unbalanced.
>>> It's a Mystery. But all Catholics - if not Catholic Reformed, or
>>> whatever you'll eventually become in the great one-world religion -
>>> confess that Our Lord and Savior was fully God, fully Man, and that
>>> the OT was FULFILLED in the new.
>
>>Why do you have such difficulty with the "fully human" aspect?
>
> I don't. And if you didn't get this, the first time, as I said - I'll
> repeat it . . over and over and over and over again, until you do; or
> at least until you read it.
>
>
> I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the hated
> Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord and
> Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also a
> statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud mystery
> of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you are told
> you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies happened
> to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ. Well?
You cut and pasted this same shit again. It makes as little sense as the
first time you cut and pasted it.
>>I am *not*
>
> Whatever. Look, that's enough for you, now. You show me you can read
> just what's above, and we'll take it from there. Fair?
If you wrote something that made sense it might be the case.
> Because, you jackass, it allows us to
> meditate more fully on the life of Christ.
>
> [Tony Miller, msgid:slrnaqn78...@callisto.jtan.com]
Hee haw, Mark.
Sumbuny
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism that
> >adresses this very issue:
> >http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
>
> >(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and walked
> >through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
>
> >(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed with
> >human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance and
> >error, from all sin and imperfection.
>
> >Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
> >intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is no
> >evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that
>
> So you not only pick and choose from Holy Scriptures, you now quote
> and then pick n choose from this catechism?
Where did I ever say anything about Jesus not being Divine????
Now, if you want me to waste the bandwidth to post the entire catechism.....
>
> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
> core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
You are the one picking and choosing...choosing to ignore the second part of
the FullyGod/Fully Human Jesus...
>
> >improve His mother's home to the technology that we have now? I.e.,
"free
> >from ignorance" means that Jesus not only knew everything about then, but
> >everything about *now* and the future--doesn't mean that he paraded such
> >knowledge
>
> 'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
> episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
> retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
> astonished the Temple 'experts'.
Mary and Joseph not knowing where Jesus was had what to do with Jesus'
knowledge? This has what to do with your assertion that Jesus was
"teaching"?
Buny
Sumbuny
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrnc15bs...@home.cigardiary.com...
> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:47 -0800, Mark Johnson
> >> <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> > "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
> >> >>OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>
> >> Being fully man means to take on all the frailties of man. That means
> >> not being able to draw on his omnicience.
>
> So, Tony, it means what . . again?
>
> Maybe you should elaborate.
>
>
> >> resisting temptation like the rest of us.
>
> More than this. You really should explain yourself, in some detail.
>
> It'll help you more than than myself, believe me.
>
>
> >of the Cross, because it shows that Jesus actually *fell down* from His
> >wounds/fatigue not only once, but *three times*!!!
> >Buny
>
> Same question to you, 'sum'. Do you confess that Our Lord and Saviour
> was fully God, and fully Man? Or are you . . . uncomfortable . . .
> with either one?
I have no problem with either Jesus Divinity or His Humanity....do you
confess to *both*? Or are you...uncomfortable...with the Humanity of Jesus?
Buny
Sumbuny
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:2q3310hag2jbsc1dd...@4ax.com...
> >> "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
> >> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >>> his wisdom and his answers."
>
> >> This says *nothing* about "teaching"
>
>
was
> >*teaching* as a child...
>
> Yeah. Done that.
You gave a passage about Jesus asking questions of the teachers...but
nothing about Him *teaching* Himself...
>
> >> >I do...you seem to forget the "fully Man" part.
>
> >> No, I've said repeatedly that I'm Catholic, unlike yourself. I'm the
> >> hated Catholic, who dares to confess Tradition - such as that Our Lord
> >> and Savior was fully God, and fully Man. It's a Mystery. But it's also
> >> a statement of dogma. You, on the other hand, awash in the proud
> >> mystery of iniquity, stumble blindly from heresy to heresy, and you
> >> are told you should. And I wondered if . . one . . of those heresies
> >> happened to be where you ultimately denied the Godhood of Christ.
> >> Well?
>
> >I have never denied that Jesus is fully God and fully Human.
>
> You pretty much have by dancing around, and picking n choosing, over
> this issue that causes you so much distress - that Our Lord was fully
> God, as well as fully Man.
>
>
> >whether or not you are accepting of the second half of that nature in
Him.
>
> I've said so, repeatedly. And as I do, on Usenet, I'll just keep
> repeating it 100 times over until you finally read the words, or get
> bored and go away.
Then why do you getting angry when anyone talks about His actions which are
*human*?
>
> >> When the issue of astonishing the 'experts' in the Temple was
> >> mentioned. And He taught. He taught as one Who knew. And it enraged
> >> them.
>
> >You found it strange that a student who is not both Divine and Human
could
> >suprise his elders with his answers? I mentioned that everyday kids do
> >that...it is quite common.
>
> No it's not. Kids don't, or didn't in that day, walk into the Temple,
> in a Temple-based Judaism, and astonish and enrage the 'experts' as
1) Were you there in that day?
2) Where is a Jewish Temple that a person can attempt that today?
(hint...there isn't any...)
> One Who knew. I'm sorry - didn't happen, 'sum'. This was an unusual
> and unique event in the history of the Second Temple. You just don't
> get this stuff.
>
>
> >so then you brought up the "He was the Son of a
> >carpenter"...I asked what you meant by that comment..
>
> It proved more interesting that you and DH read a lot into that, based
> on your own prejudice, as I pointed out.
You are inferring what others read into your comment...I am asking *you*
what*you* meant...not what DH or I thought about it...
C'mon...you must have meant something...just be...honest...here...if you
dare.
>
> >I accept that Jesus is fully Divine *and* fully human.
>
> But that doesn't appear to be the case. You mouth the words, as the
> saying goes. But you don't give the impression of confessing this, as
> fact. You have a very Reformed Catholic take on everything - which is
> Protestantism. And I tell you that, as a Catholic, on this very
> Catholic ng.
Tell me what it means that Jesus has a Human aspect...we know He has a
Divine one--you have focused on that...tell us about His Humanity...
>
>
> >> >> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
> >> >> Holy Family were penniless, or something. You prefer it to mean that
> >> >> He was not very wise. I said - He was the son of a carpenter.
>
> >> >Why did you bring this up, then?
>
> >> I suggested there was no separate course of study for the priesthood,
> >> or other official function, but that Our Lord was the son of a
> >> carpenter.
>
> >You mean that the average Jewish kid of the time was not receiving any
kind
> >of religious instruction?
>
> Did I say that? Again, that's your misunderstanding of things,
> assuming you didn't really mean that as a question, but as an
> accusation. Me - when I ask questions, they're questions.
What did you mean, then? You sure love ambiguity and obtuseness....
>
> You don't get that, either, do you - 'sum'?
Try to explain, then...
>
>
> >> Not only are you blind, you have the attention span of a tv viewer.
>
> >LOL...I suppose that this is a cheap shot at my ADHD?
>
> Just based on what you post, 'sum'. Are you blaming your performance
> on some sort of ailment? Is that it?
Are you trying to be insulting because I am not as "perfect" as you and do
not fear to admit it? Last person to walk this earth that was perfect is
the one whom you deny Humanity to...
Isn't denying the Humanity of Jesus a heresy?
Buny
Sumbuny
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >news:bv0je0$b5bq1$3...@ID-82123.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> True, but one of the points I wanted to make in the original post
> >> (besides exploring the field for myself, making sure I don't forget my
> >> Greek completely, starting a discussion and providing a nice bait for
> >> Markie -- which obviously worked out), was that if Jesus and the
> >> deciples were well-off, they leaving their, well, upper-middle class
> >> lives behind and chosing poverty, they took a bigger step
>
> DH seems to imagine that he is the very first to examine Holy
> Scriptures or consider The Mysteries, the histories, etc.
At least he does study them, consider them...and offers *discussions* on
them, and not blanket condemnation of those who do not agree with him...
> Bow down
> before the 'great teacher',
I will not bow before you...regardless of how perfect you believe yourself
to be...
>
> ><nodding> Jesus inherited a carpentry shop from Joseph
>
> What exactly was in this "carpentry shop"? You seem to know so much
> about it? I'm curious. Tell me.
You are the one who keeps bringing up that Jesus was the son of a
carpenter...what do carpenter's son's inherit? Fishing supplies?
>
>
> >> > I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.....ah yes, Jesus
> >> > forgot to speak in Latin.
>
> >> ....... and provide the facing pages for Mark Johnson.
>
> >..in Aramaic...
> >Buny
>
> You still don't get it, 'sum'. DH never will. Maybe you never will,
> either. But I have to ask - if that was Our Lord at The Last Supper,
> at in The Holy Mass for century after century, if not 'new order',
> what does that say about 'new order'?
Hmmm....Jesus using Aramaic at the first Mass....Aramaic used for centuries
in Mass, then it was *changed to Latin*?
What *does* that say about your new order of Mass in a different language
than the original?
Buny
Sumbuny
"Alan Ferris" <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:5cf810hqv5us9eenl...@4ax.com...
He has conveneniently forgotten that the first major change of the language
of the Mass was *to* Latin, not "from" it...
IOW, he is so neatly insulting *himself*...
Buny
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism that
> >adresses this very issue:
> >http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
>
> >(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and walked
> >through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
>
> >(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed with
> >human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance and
> >error, from all sin and imperfection.
>
> >Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
> >intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is no
> >evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that
>
> So you not only pick and choose from Holy Scriptures, you now quote
> and then pick n choose from this catechism?
>
> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
> core.
That's better than gagging down the vomit of Mark's "Catholicism" and
then having to say how YUMMY it is...
Paul
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrnc15bs...@home.cigardiary.com...
> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:47 -0800, Mark Johnson
> >> <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >> > "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
> >> >>OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>
> >> Being fully man means to take on all the frailties of man. That means
> >> not being able to draw on his omnicience.
>
> So, Tony, it means what . . again?
>
> Maybe you should elaborate.
>
> >> resisting temptation like the rest of us.
>
> More than this. You really should explain yourself, in some detail.
>
> It'll help you more than than myself, believe me.
>
> >of the Cross, because it shows that Jesus actually *fell down* from His
> >wounds/fatigue not only once, but *three times*!!!
> >Buny
>
> Same question to you, 'sum'. Do you confess that Our Lord and Saviour
> was fully God, and fully Man? Or are you . . . uncomfortable . . .
> with either one?
>
> Just be honest. Say what you mean. You'll help yourself by thinking
> about it with more than the attention span of a tv viewer.
>
I see...Mama and Papa Johnson can't even afford to buy a tv set,
so you convince yourself that you're a better person for not having one.
(kinda the same thing you do with your church)
Paul
rwalker
Just his usual addle-brained blatherings. Any wonder he's the only
one who takes himself seriously? No wonder Cal Thomas is his hero.
rwalker
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism that
> >adresses this very issue:
> >http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
>
> >(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and walked
> >through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
>
> >(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed with
> >human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance and
> >error, from all sin and imperfection.
>
> >Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
> >intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is no
> >evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that
>
> So you not only pick and choose from Holy Scriptures, you now quote
> and then pick n choose from this catechism?
>
> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
> core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
>
Don't project, you .... hypocrite you.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:jpc810leeb7efjb20...@4ax.com...
>> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnc15bs...@home.cigardiary.com...
>> >> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:35:47 -0800, Mark Johnson
>> >> <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >> > "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
>> >> >>OK...what does it mean that Jesus is fully God *and* fully Man.
>> >> Being fully man means to take on all the frailties of man. That means
>> >> not being able to draw on his omnicience.
>> So, Tony, it means what . . again?
>> Maybe you should elaborate.
>> >> resisting temptation like the rest of us.
>> More than this. You really should explain yourself, in some detail.
>> It'll help you more than than myself, believe me.
>> Same question to you, 'sum'. Do you confess that Our Lord and Saviour
>> was fully God, and fully Man? Or are you . . . uncomfortable . . .
>> with either one?
>I have no problem with either Jesus Divinity or His Humanity.
'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
astonished the Temple 'experts'.
Peace.
-----------------------------------
Mark Johnson
>Just his usual addle-brained blatherings.
Don't fret, Robert A. You're crazy enough to be a Dean man. And he
seems to be winning friends in NH. You might be able to celebrate yet
- you Democrat you.
bernard connor
Apart from royalty, aristocracy and property owners, marriage was a
fairly informal matter.
The Council of Trent formalised the union for Roman Catholics and the
Puritan Government in Britain introduced the registation of marriages,
births and deaths. In took centuries for the formalised practices to
be widespread. Now, informal partnerships are frequently substitutes
for marriage.
Thoms Hardy in his fictional Mayor of Casterbridge tells the story of
a man who put his wife and child up for auction.
Such events would have been unusual in Hardy's time but not uncommon a
few generations earlier.
Bernard Connor
Mark Johnson
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:20:59 -0800, Mark Johnson
><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>Alan Ferris <al...@spamddandd.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:25:32 -0800, Mark Johnson
>>><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>Projection, thy name is Johnson.
>>>When are you going to stop making a fool of yourself publicly?
>>But I don't project on others. As for posting foolish messages to
>>Usenet, I'll leave that to you. Cause you know what they say about
>>projection, and you might want to read this:
>So all this silly
You gotta read this, first:
>>[His] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called PROJECTION.
>>It is a technique by which the ego of an individual defends itself
>>against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or characteristics by denying
>>their existence in himself while he attributes them to others.
>>Innumerable examples of this mechanism could be cited in [his] case
>Indeed it reads perfectly when you do this:
>>[Mark Johnson] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called PROJECTION.
>>It is a technique by which the ego of an individual defends itself
>>against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or characteristics by denying
>>their existence in himself while he attributes them to others.
>>Innumerable examples of this mechanism could be cited in [Mark Jophnson] case
But it makes no sense, that way. I don't project. I don't accuse
others except to criticize what they've posted, and which is typically
very much different than what I confess. I am specific in my
criticism. I explain what I mean. And I don't falsely accuse.
Now - you - what about you? How does that read . . in your case:
[Alan's] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called
PROJECTION. It is a technique by which the ego of an individual
defends itself against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or
characteristics by denying their existence in himself while he
attributes them to others. Innumerable examples of this mechanism
could be cited in [his] case
Rings true, doesn't it? Just be honest.
Mark Johnson
>> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
>> core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
>Don't project, you .... hypocrite you.
We'll all hypocrites. But I'm not hypocritical about being Reformed
Catholic. I think such Protestantism is entirely wrong, and have
explained, in detail, in many message, over may years, why I say that.
You're just projecting, because of your own hypocrisy. You put that on
me. You should deal with your own problems . . yourself.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:spc810ll0t3d2eirk...@4ax.com...
>> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism that
>> >adresses this very issue:
>> >http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
>> >(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and walked
>> >through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
>> >(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed with
>> >human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance and
>> >error, from all sin and imperfection.
>> >Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
>> >intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is no
>> >evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that
>> So you not only pick and choose from Holy Scriptures, you now quote
>> and then pick n choose from this catechism?
>Where did I ever say anything about Jesus not being Divine?
You emphasized only that HE was not, just above.
>Now, if you want me to waste the bandwidth to post the entire catechism.
But to what purpose, 'sum'? You really don't think about things, at
all - do you?
As I wrote:
>> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
>> core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
>You are the one picking and choosing.
Don't project, 'sum'. I confess Catholic dogma. I'm not sure you do.
I'm not sure you even understand the least of it.
>> 'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
>> episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
>> retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
>> astonished the Temple 'experts'.
>Mary and Joseph not knowing where Jesus was had what to do with Jesus'
>knowledge?
Don't be cute, 'sum'. You know what I'm talking about. Let me
rephrase:
'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
astonished the Temple 'experts'.
vox vulgata
> ><dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >>Mark Johnson schrieb:
>
> >>> DH preferred that to mean, by his own prejudice, that the
> >>> Holy Family were penniless, or something.
>
> >>supposed to be his first language. Or he didn't read my post.
>
> >>Or he's a lying shitbag.
> >>The choice is his . . . here.
> >>That sums it up neatly, MJ
>
> Sums up
your cowardice and dishonesty. If you want to reply to what I write, do
so in reply to my posts. I have asked you that more than once. Replying
to quoted portions in the follow-ups is on the intellectual level of a
2-year-old (and so is your syntax and punctuation), but comparing a
2-year-old to you comes extremely close to child abuse. Heretic without
balls sums it up neatly, though.
But do carry on, Heretic Without Balls, making a complete idiot of
yourself in public. I have actually given you the benefit of a doubt and
every now and again I might come back to your posts in order to correct
your errors, point out your lies, dishonesty and idiocy (well, all that
is self-explanatory anyway), and have some fun with the rubbish you
write. Should you have grown up in the meantime and behave like a
sensible human being, I'll be more than happy to communicate with you
again. Just let me know, you can also send me an email:
dho...@myrealbox.clom and say thank you for "Anima Christi", which I
emailed you ages ago. In the meantime I'll put you back into my
killfile.
DH
PS: I seemed to remember from your extremely poor and embarrassing
performance in alt.language.latin that you suggested you wanted to learn
Latin? You were asking for a book "for the Catholic student", didn't
you?
------------------------------
From: Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.language.latin
Subject: Re: Good books.
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 06:04:52 -0800
msid: <fm9hsv8uljh7lnhba...@4ax.com>
"I'm going to suppose that there are so many
variants of Latin, historically, that just any text might not prepare
one for, say, ecclesial Latin, specifically? I see certain Catholic
sites offer some Latin primers. I might take a look at those. Have you
read any specifically aimed toward the Catholic student?"
-----------------------------
So, Markie, how's it going? Mastered the dative of possessor yet or
still stuck on the third declension? Or do you still drool on your
facing pages?
Daniel Hoehr
Sumbuny schrieb:
>
> "Daniel Hoehr" <dho...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:bv0je0$b5bq1$3...@ID-82123.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > True, but one of the points I wanted to make in the original post
> > (besides exploring the field for myself, making sure I don't forget my
> > Greek completely, starting a discussion and providing a nice bait for
> > Markie -- which obviously worked out), was that if Jesus and the
> > deciples were well-off, they leaving their, well, upper-middle class
> > lives behind and chosing poverty, they took a bigger step that if they
> > were poor in the first place. Poor people talking about how poverty
> > brings you closer to God is one thing; well-off people choosing
> > poverty out of their free will in oder to be closer to God is quite
> > another. And that's what I personally got out of exploring that area
> > for myself.
>
> <nodding> Jesus inherited a carpentry shop from Joseph, Peter *owned* a
> fishing boat (my undle was a shrimper--similar deal, he used nets) and had a
> thriving business (didn't his brother also work the boat? There were many
> who worked that boat), *and* a family (we did hear once about his
> wife)...and left them behind...
Well, we read about Saint Peter's mother-in-law (I don't have an NT at
hand, but try Luke 4:thirtysomething).
They all left their families behind, their homes, their possessions...
Actually, we are also asked to follow Jesus. Realy following Him, would
that mean doing the same? Uncomfortable thought, isn't it?
> > > I wonder why Mark ignores the teachings.....ah yes, Jesus
> > > forgot to speak in Latin.
> >
> > ....... and provide the facing pages for Mark Johnson.
>
> ..in Aramaic...
.... and Johnsonspeak
> Buny
Daniel
MC Gallagher, Best-Dressed Sockpuppet on Usenet
wrote:
>You'll keep repeating the same tired shit over and over. The same tired
>shit that doesn't answer the question posed.
>
>A normal Mark Johnson dialog goes like this.
>
><Tony> Mark, what is 2+2
>
><Mark> Cucumber
>
><Tony> But that makes no sense, Mark.
>
><Mark> It would if you read what I wrote as I wrote it.
>
><Tony> But Mark, I asked what 2+2 was. You answered Cucumber. A
>vegetable has nothing to do with an arithmetic question.
>
><Mark> "The mass as we knew it is dead. I didn't say that, one of your
>'reformers' said that!
>
><Tony> Mark, what does the mass have to do with 2+2? Don't you know how
>to answer a simple question.
>
><Mark> Don't project you 'Catholic' you.
>
><Tony> Mark just answer the question. What is 2+2?
>
><Mark> Read http://www.geocities.com/ymjcath/ImAnEffinfIdiot.htm it's all
>there.
ROTFLMAO!
Fortunately, I had the good sense to remove my beverage before opening
your post.
With your permission, I would like to add this to the "maf and DH
Comedy Special," to air in the US sometime in 2004. Would that be ok?
MC Gallagher, Best-Dressed Sockpuppet on Usenet
<IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Bow down
>> before the 'great teacher',
>
>I will not bow before you...regardless of how perfect you believe yourself
>to be...
I think bowing before him would be a splendid thing........IF we're
facing the audience and he's behind us.
Also, make sure DH and Tony have eaten a generous helping of beans
beforehand.
Tony Miller
Of course, as long as you correct the ImAnEffingIdiot.htm before you do
it. :)
Tony Miller
>
> "Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:t4c810dgkrd9ar28t...@4ax.com...
>> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> >news:2q3310hag2jbsc1dd...@4ax.com...
>> >> "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
>> >> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> >> >It's in-the-Bible, 'sum'. "And all that heard him were astonished at
>> >>> his wisdom and his answers."
>>
>> >> This says *nothing* about "teaching"
>>
>> >> 'sum', you're not getting this, are you?
>>
>> >Apparently I am not...please cite the chapter/verse that says that Jesus
> was
>> >*teaching* as a child...
>
>>
>> Yeah. Done that.
>
> You gave a passage about Jesus asking questions of the teachers...but
> nothing about Him *teaching* Himself...
You are so patient with Mark. I think you have a viable career in special
education.
Sumbuny
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:spc810ll0t3d2eirk...@4ax.com...
> >> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Hey...guess what I found: An excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism
that
> >> >adresses this very issue:
> >> >http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/BCLESS7.HTM
>
> >> >(b) Christ, like other men, ate, drank, became tired, slept, and
walked
> >> >through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria.
>
> >> >(c) Christ, as man, was the most perfect of all men. He was endowed
with
> >> >human intelligence and free will, but He was free from all ignorance
and
> >> >error, from all sin and imperfection.
>
> >> >Please notice (c)...it states that Jesus was "endowed with *human
> >> >intelligence*....it does also state free from ignorance--but there is
no
> >> >evidence in the Bible that He exhibited that
>
> >> So you not only pick and choose from Holy Scriptures, you now quote
> >> and then pick n choose from this catechism?
>
> >Where did I ever say anything about Jesus not being Divine?
>
> You emphasized only that HE was not, just above.
No, I only pointed out a small section of the catechism discussing His
Humanity...but since you insist on wasting bandwidth, you can find the
section dealing with His Duality on that same page....
83. How many natures has Jesus Christ?
Jesus Christ has two natures: the nature of God and the nature of man.
(a) There is a difference between person and nature. Human nature is
composed of body and soul; in a human person is found the added perfection
which makes each one an individual, distinct from all others. A human person
has only one human nature. Christ is a divine Person having the nature of
God and the nature of man.
(b) Christ proved He had both the nature of God and the nature of man by
doing some things that only God could do, and other things that men do.
(c) It is heresy to deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ by accepting Him
as merely a perfect man; it is also heresy to deny His human nature.
Please note this last line...you refuse to discuss Jesus' human
nature...what does that say about you and heresy?
>
>
> >Now, if you want me to waste the bandwidth to post the entire catechism.
>
> But to what purpose, 'sum'? You really don't think about things, at
> all - do you?
I do...why do you refuse to discuss the human nature of Jesus?
""(c) It is heresy to deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ by accepting
Him as merely a perfect man; it is also heresy to deny His human nature. ""
>
>
> As I wrote:
>
> >> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
> >> core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
>
> >You are the one picking and choosing.
>
> Don't project, 'sum'. I confess Catholic dogma. I'm not sure you do.
> I'm not sure you even understand the least of it.
do...why do you refuse to discuss the human nature of Jesus?
""(c) It is heresy to deny the divine nature of Jesus Christ by accepting
Him as merely a perfect man; it is also heresy to deny His human nature. ""
>
>
> >> 'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
> >> episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
> >> retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
> >> astonished the Temple 'experts'.
>
> >Mary and Joseph not knowing where Jesus was had what to do with Jesus'
> >knowledge?
>
> Don't be cute, 'sum'. You know what I'm talking about. Let me
> rephrase:
>
> 'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
> episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
> retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
> astonished the Temple 'experts'.
He "astonished" the experts...I do not see anything about *teaching*....
Try again...
Buny
Sumbuny
> rwa...@despammed.com (rwalker) wrote:
>
> >> You just cain't hep yourself, can ya? 'Cafeteria catholic' to the
> >> core. Reformed Catholic, in the Yellow Page, one day.
>
> >Don't project, you .... hypocrite you.
>
> We'll all hypocrites.
A refreshing air of honesty?
Buny
Sumbuny
>
> 'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
> episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
> retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
> astonished the Temple 'experts'.
Interesting tactic...cut/paste the identical response to different
questions...
Tell me how "astonish" means *teach*....
Buny
Sumbuny
"MC Gallagher, Best-Dressed Sockpuppet on Usenet"
news:lpt910pnpssgpvmaq...@4ax.com...
You volunteering to "pull their fingers"?
Buny
Sumbuny
"bernard connor" <bernard...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6bc4e164.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<RuVQb.10999$ZJ1.8344@lakeread01>...
> > "Paul Duca" <toms...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:4011F646...@comcast.net...
> > >
> > >
knocked
> > > her up....
> >
> >
> > Wasn't betrothal legally binding in that era?
> > Buny
>
> Apart from royalty, aristocracy and property owners, marriage was a
> fairly informal matter.
Then why did Joseph consider "divorcing her quietly" if he was not legally
bound to her (Matt 1:19)? If betrothal was not legally binding then, why
didn't Joseph consider simply walking away (as so many do these days
<sigh>)?
Buny
bernard connor
Because divorce for a man was just as informal as marriage. He would
simply "put her away".
The situation is similar in Islam today. He simply says "I divorce
you" three times in fron of a witness.
An Irish woman whom I know was divorced in this manner by her moslem
husband in Abu Dhabi about 20 years ago. She got £3,000 as a
"settlement". Presumably if her husband was unemployed, she would not
have got anything.
Bernard
Alan Ferris
How can he forget! I kept reminding him.
Oh well, if he wishes to rant so be it.
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Sumbuny
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:44:18 -0600, Sumbuny
> <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > news:t4c810dgkrd9ar28t...@4ax.com...
> >> "Sumbuny" <IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:2q3310hag2jbsc1dd...@4ax.com...
> >> >> "SumBuny" <sum...@REMOVETHISPARTcox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >It's in-the-Bible, 'sum'. "And all that heard him were astonished
at
> >> >>> his wisdom and his answers."
> >>
> >> >> This says *nothing* about "teaching"
> >>
> >> >> 'sum', you're not getting this, are you?
> >>
> >> >Apparently I am not...please cite the chapter/verse that says that
Jesus
> > was
> >> >*teaching* as a child...
> >
> >>
> >> Yeah. Done that.
> >
> > You gave a passage about Jesus asking questions of the teachers...but
> > nothing about Him *teaching* Himself...
>
> You are so patient with Mark. I think you have a viable career in special
> education.
Thank you...I hope so, since that is what I am looking at for my major.
I have to admit, I do not know how much of this is truly patience, or even
manipulation on my part...MJ is so predictable in his reactions that I tend
to phrase my comments to him to elicit specific responses...too bad I did
not have this opportunity when I was taking psychology classes--I wonder
what kind of paper I could have come up with as a case study...here...
Buny
Sumbuny
Unfortunately, in many states in the US, divorce is almost that
simple..witness the media circus over Brittany Spears' marriage/divorce
within 72 hours...
Buny
Alan Ferris
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> And I don't falsely accuse.
So all those times you called me a Reformed Catholic are what?
[Mark Johnson] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called
PROJECTION. It is a technique by which the ego of an individual
defends itself against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or
characteristics by denying heir existence in himself while he
attributes them to others. Innumerable examples of this mechanism
could be cited in [Mark Johnson] case .
Exaple:
------------------
You're a CR, am I right? You don't WANT . . to sing . . you don't
desire to sing . . Gregorian chant.
So you'd never get that far. You just disparage the use of Latin at
every opportunity instead - yes?
-----------------
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:rn9910hj05mecs5kp...@4ax.com...
>> 'Sum', while you're in a rare reading mood, have you considered the
>> episode in the Temple, when His family lost Him and had to desperately
>> retrace their steps? That's something you can read about, how He
>> astonished the Temple 'experts'.
>Interesting tactic.
I didn't think you had read this, previously. And it does address your
concern, of course.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Mark Johnson
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:48:10 -0600, "Sumbuny"
><IGNORETH...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Bow down
>>> before the 'great teacher',
>>I will not bow before you...regardless of how perfect you believe yourself
>>to be...
>I think bowing before him would be a splendid thing........IF we're
>facing the audience and he's behind us.
That reference was to DH. And _I_ was the one who suggested it was the
only way to get his full attention.
Mark Johnson
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:23:34 -0800, Mark Johnson
><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> And I don't falsely accuse.
-----------------------
>You're a CR, am I right? You don't WANT . . to sing . . you don't
>desire to sing . . Gregorian chant.
>So you'd never get that far. You just disparage the use of Latin at
>every opportunity instead - yes?
-----------------------
I already said I gave you too much credit even referring to you as CR.
And I asked which denomination had you. And you're still ducking that
question. That's no false accusation. That's a documented fact -
groups.google. Haven't you been reading?
So don't project. Because you know what they say about that:
[His] outstanding defense mechanism is one commonly called
PROJECTION. It is a technique by which the ego of an individual
defends itself against unpleasant impulses, tendencies or
characteristics by denying their existence in himself while he
attributes them to others. Innumerable examples of this mechanism
could be cited in [his] case . . .