Chili

A dove is domesticated and a pigeon is wild.

Domesticated here means from a source as send by God to bring harmony about wherein the dove is the empowerment to lead the beneficiary home, and so is in evidence of God send.

A pidgeon is without a home and so will fly the coop again. It may have been send from an animal, like a monkey maybe as we see on American TV, or from a wild beast that send the spirit of fighting on the beneficiary, and so your distinction is well made.

So a dove is what you want and I think white is the color that you need.

stephan huller

I think I figured it out. spin and Andrew are probably the only judges of whether I am right or not. I think the dove reference is a sloppy translation of the original Aramaic. Here is the Gospel of the Ebionites as translated into Greek:

When Celsus says that Jesus saw the holy Spirit come down on him he is clearly quoting from this material:

But the words 'as a dove' or 'under the form of the dove' must have been understood to be kyonah, the kaf prefix (= k) is the equivalent of 'as' or 'like' in Aramaic. But the original text must have been kiona (the same letters save for an alef instead of a he) which means 'straight' or 'directly' so the original text read:

What do you think? I think that's a pretty major discovery and may be the explanation to a lot of mistakes involving that prefix - i.e. 'Carpocrates' instead of 'as Harpocrates' etc. I think this is a major discovery. The person who translated the section is probably Irenaeus who is so misguided in his translations of Hebrew and Aramaic he thinks the opening words of Genesis can be rendered 'in his Son' (= bereshith).

Here is the page in Jastrow http://hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebr..._38236_647.pdf

stephan huller

don't forget that this would be the second mistaken translation from this section. Jerome points out John did not eat "locusts" but "cakes dipped in oil"

stephan huller

And I can possibly explain the error. kywn or kywna meaning "directly" or "straight" only exists in Jewish Aramaic. The person translating the text only knew Syriac and mistook the term for "like a dove"

stephan huller

There can be no doubt that something like what I am suggesting must have existed because the dove reference disappears in the gospel of the Nazarenes. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 4 [on Isaiah 11:2] writes:

The 'when' in the last passage may well have been a kywna reference as Jastrow translates the term with the English 'when' in many instances:

Jerome must have been able to translate Aramaic better than Irenaeus, or perhaps, Irenaeus deliberately misrepresented the text ...

Chili

Just a simple reading will tell you that into is different then onto, as into means there to stay, and that would deny his mother-in-law miracle where doubt was called to order again because she flew the coop or maybe just shit on him.

And a good point you make about about the WILD locust in Mark as opposed to cakes dipped in oil that were like ointment when understood as his favorite that he was looking for. Nicely put.

The old timers were not stupid and knew exactly how to call a right and a wrong and pile-it-on even to give them what they seek in double dose.

stephan huller

The entry in Sokoloff's Dictionary of Jewish Aramaic http://books.google.com/books?id=WdN...hen%22&f=false

stephan huller

Some examples in Hebrew of kaf being used in this way. kephir in Hebrew is young lion and in Proverbs 28:1 we see the kaf added as a prefix to denote 'as a lion':

Notice also the kaf added to aryeh (lion). The Mishnah adds lo ke’aryeh she’lemata, ela ke’arye she’le’maalah, "not like an earthly lion but rather like a heavenly lion." I think the readers get the gist of things.

stephan huller

The translator of the gospel may have wanted to align the text with scriptural material such as the Odes of Solomon:

stephan huller

The narrative in the Nag Hammadi Testimony of Truth is worth looking at again. The unfortunately fragmentary text reads:

Compare with Mark 1:10:

We know from Celsus and the Gospel of the Hebrews that the 'he' here was originally. Mark doesn't seem to support that understanding because the previous sentence ends with a reference to John the Baptist. But this may have been deliberately arranged.

Matthew 3:9 preserves Jesus's witnessing of the descent of the Holy Spirit:

But this is a most curious construction again because it is difficult to belief that Matthew could have known that Jesus thought that the Holy Spirit looked like a dove. How did the author know that?