Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 07-06-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

It would be a bit like changing Bush into Tush - what would be the point?

Accuracy?

Doug Shaver · 07-07-2010, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In effect, the Pauline writings cannot be accepted as true or credible on Paul's word alone.

Maybe not, but at least they're more coherent than your writings.

braces_for_impact · 07-07-2010, 07:34 AM

It was pronouned "br+eye+ann".

darstec · 07-09-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Assuming that he even actually lived, wasn't he from Tarsus?

His home city and nation are unknown. In none of the writings attributed to him does he say where he was from. The author of Acts said he was from Tarsus. I, and many others in this forum, consider Acts to be worthless as a source of historical data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Even the name he claimed previous to his conversion, Saul, is not Turkish.

Again, that was the author of Acts making the claim. Paul himself never said anything about having once been known by any other name.

You should know by now I think all the main characters and all the authors of the NT are fictitious. I am sure I have referred to Paul as a group. The main point was that Paul, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary, Joseph, the apostles, never ever have anyone claiming to be descendants of them. The commentary about his native language was an offshoot of that.

darstec · 07-09-2010, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Read Acts 13. Paul did not change his name. Acts describes a man named "Saul" who persecutes Christians, is struck by a vision on the road to Damascus, and starts his missionary journey.

Then, on the island of Cyprus, Saul meets the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who has a false Jewish prophet on his staff, named Bar-Jesus. At that point, the narrative tells us that Saul was also named Paul, and the character is referred to as Paul for the rest of Acts.

There was no name change.

Note: there are several inscriptions that Christians have interpreted as establishing that Sergius Paulus was an actual historical person. The one in Pisidian Antioch actually references Lucius Sergius Paulus, who might have been the son of Sergius Paulus. There is also an inscription in Rome, although Paul does not mention Sergius in any of his letters, which seems strange if this is remotely historical.

There are several Early Christian Writers who have homilies devoted to Saul changing his name to Paul. Apparently this is one of those gray areas where the name looks like it was changed. Or are you saying the author of Acts meant to convey that Paul and Saul were two entirely different people?

In Romans, the writer mentions his sons (sometimes translated as kinsmen or cousins) Lucius, Jason and Sosipater.

All this lends more support that the NT books were written far removed from the time and geography where the events were said to have happened.

Toto · 07-09-2010, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

...
There are several Early Christian Writers who have homilies devoted to Saul changing his name to Paul. ...

Cite?

aa5874 · 07-09-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In effect, the Pauline writings cannot be accepted as true or credible on Paul's word alone.

Maybe not, but at least they're more coherent than your writings.

But, your statement is a bit odd. You have demonstrated you understand what I write or at least you have isolated the parts that are coherent to you.

You must remember I have never claimed to have mastered any language.

Transient · 07-09-2010, 08:07 PM

When people translate a person's name into another language, what do they try to achieve? Do they try to keep the same verbal sound of the name, the meaning of the words, the look of the letters?
If they try to make a meaning out of the name then Mr. Bush would be translated into the equivalent for a shrubbery I guess.
I would have thought that the sound of the name is the only thing worth preserving even if their isn't an equivalent but to make it as close as possible.

Sounds like there was no "J" sound back 2000 years ago in Palestine so why did they add it in eventually to the "name above all names"

aa5874 · 07-09-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

When people translate a person's name into another language, what do they try to achieve? Do they try to keep the same verbal sound of the name, the meaning of the words, the look of the letters?
If they try to make a meaning out of the name then Mr. Bush would be translated into the equivalent for a shrubbery I guess.
I would have thought that the sound of the name is the only thing worth preserving even if their isn't an equivalent but to make it as close as possible.

Sounds like there was no "J" sound back 2000 years ago in Palestine so why did they add it in eventually to the "name above all names"

But, there are the writings of Josephus which mentioned many characters called Jesus in the first century before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Based on the writings of Josephus there seemed not to be anything special about being called by the name Jesus.

Perhaps, "Jesus" was equivalent to "Joe".

What would people think if it was claimed today that "Joe the robber" was the Messiah?

"The Life of Flavius Josephus" 22

Quote:

....Accordingly, they sent to Jesus, the captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, and promised to give him a great deal of money...

Transient · 07-09-2010, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

When people translate a person's name into another language, what do they try to achieve? Do they try to keep the same verbal sound of the name, the meaning of the words, the look of the letters?
If they try to make a meaning out of the name then Mr. Bush would be translated into the equivalent for a shrubbery I guess.
I would have thought that the sound of the name is the only thing worth preserving even if their isn't an equivalent but to make it as close as possible.

Sounds like there was no "J" sound back 2000 years ago in Palestine so why did they add it in eventually to the "name above all names"

But, there are the writings of Josephus which mentioned many characters called Jesus in the first century before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Based on the writings of Josephus there seemed not to be anything special about being called by the name Jesus.

Perhaps, "Jesus" was equivalent to "Joe".

What would people think if it was claimed today that "Joe the robber" was the Messiah?

"The Life of Flavius Josephus" 22

Quote:

....Accordingly, they sent to Jesus, the captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, and promised to give him a great deal of money...

Couldn't agree more except for the use of the word "Jesus", since no name anything like that sound was ever used in Palestine so it would seem.
Any ideas on the main part of my question?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2010, 07:34 AM	#23
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	It was pronouned "br+eye+ann".

07-09-2010, 08:07 PM	#28
Transient Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 412	When people translate a person's name into another language, what do they try to achieve? Do they try to keep the same verbal sound of the name, the meaning of the words, the look of the letters? If they try to make a meaning out of the name then Mr. Bush would be translated into the equivalent for a shrubbery I guess. I would have thought that the sound of the name is the only thing worth preserving even if their isn't an equivalent but to make it as close as possible. Sounds like there was no "J" sound back 2000 years ago in Palestine so why did they add it in eventually to the "name above all names"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.