Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Teshi · 05-01-2006, 07:23 PM

Man, never mind your theology, your understanding of Latin is atrocious. I recommend you start off by actually, y'know, learning Latin, and then you can move on to tackling the vagaries of Latin diachronic linguistics.

Workbook for Wheelock's Latin, 6th Edition, revised (or via: amazon.co.uk) - Wheelock works pretty well as a self-teaching course. It's twenty bucks. Go order it.

Crazy Diamond · 05-01-2006, 07:44 PM

Teshi, the Medieval Latin language has been used as a pretext[an excuse] in order to not face the fact that Pilate used the Roman language.

Could you please elaborate where does the transcription ID EST SUS for I.E.SUS lack of discernment?

Quote:

And who ever applies knowledge rather than beliefs, will figure out that Pilate does not write the false name "jesus" = the falseness that proceeded from the ordinations that were left to the Roman church and Roman Catholicism.

The word Id sometimes holds the meaning of Idem = the same

Est is the Latin root of the verb to be as well as it is the root of the words: estar[to be] estare.

Id Est = The same who is

suspended = above, up

FINAL CONCLUSION - ID EST SUS = The same who is above [or; the same who is suspended/above]

I.E.SUS

Nazarenus

Rex

Iudaeorum

There are only two valid solutions that are based on Scriptural facts, and the truth is only one:

mark with X on the correct valid solution:

[ ] that Pilate wrote the false name "jesus" on the plaque

[ ] that Pilate wrote the words I.E.SUS (Id Est Suspended) on the plaque

or mark on no one of the above:

[ ] no one of the above

Teshi · 05-01-2006, 07:50 PM

CD, you're not going to understand my response, just like you're not understanding the responses of others in this thread, because you don't know Latin, let alone Latin diachronics. If you want to make theological and historical arguments based on linguistics, you're going to have to learn linguistics first. Cut and paste isn't cutting it.

Crazy Diamond · 05-01-2006, 08:01 PM

Face the fact that Pilate spoke the Roman Language.

When I wrote "in the Latin Languages" [it is plural = with s]], I did not mean in the "Latin Language"(singular).

Cut and paste is helpful in order to testify what I wrote:

Quote:

Pilate did not speak Medieval Latin but the Language which is spoken in the Ancient Capital of the Roman Empire: - [in case you still don't get it] - the Ancient Roman language remained the same Language which in these days is called Italian.

Where do you think the Italian language came from, if not from the Capital of the Roman Empire?

Certainly not from some Medieval Latin-theories which are worth a good laugh and of course will remain anonymous!

Crazy Diamond · 05-02-2006, 12:02 AM

Italian is just one of the Latin languages, but the type of Latin which is commonly taught as in a classroom setting by the ones who are called great things in Latin has been often used as a pretext to not face the fact that Pilate spoke the Roman language.

Chris Weimer · 05-02-2006, 12:09 AM

Crazy Diamond,

As everyone has already told you a billion times, YOU DO NOT KNOW LATIN! Please refrain from ever talking about Latin until you actually pick up a book and learn it.

You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. Now go away.

Weltall · 05-02-2006, 12:10 AM

So Pilate spoke Italian despite the fact that it didn't exist yet and nobody else spoke it... riiiiiiight. In addition to learning some actual Latin and Linguistics, may I suggest a crash course in European History?

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

05-01-2006, 07:23 PM	#51
Teshi Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: in partibus infidelium Posts: 4,388	Man, never mind your theology, your understanding of Latin is atrocious. I recommend you start off by actually, y'know, learning Latin, and then you can move on to tackling the vagaries of Latin diachronic linguistics. Workbook for Wheelock's Latin, 6th Edition, revised (or via: amazon.co.uk) - Wheelock works pretty well as a self-teaching course. It's twenty bucks. Go order it.

05-01-2006, 07:50 PM	#53
Teshi Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: in partibus infidelium Posts: 4,388	CD, you're not going to understand my response, just like you're not understanding the responses of others in this thread, because you don't know Latin, let alone Latin diachronics. If you want to make theological and historical arguments based on linguistics, you're going to have to learn linguistics first. Cut and paste isn't cutting it.

05-02-2006, 12:02 AM	#55
Crazy Diamond Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Amazon Forest - Brazil Posts: 62	Italian is just one of the Latin languages, but the type of Latin which is commonly taught as in a classroom setting by the ones who are called great things in Latin has been often used as a pretext to not face the fact that Pilate spoke the Roman language.

05-02-2006, 12:09 AM	#56
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Crazy Diamond, As everyone has already told you a billion times, YOU DO NOT KNOW LATIN! Please refrain from ever talking about Latin until you actually pick up a book and learn it. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. Now go away.

05-02-2006, 12:10 AM	#57
Weltall Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: San Francisco Posts: 3,283	So Pilate spoke Italian despite the fact that it didn't exist yet and nobody else spoke it... riiiiiiight. In addition to learning some actual Latin and Linguistics, may I suggest a crash course in European History?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.