Re: Mac Mini hard as *** to use.

In article <141020050858299290%invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Donald L McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article
> <gmgraves-D2A757.12062313102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George
> Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article <131020051032522730%invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Donald L McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <gmgraves-2FCD5D.11451312102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George
> > > Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <proto-F7556C.14021812102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > Walter Bushell <proto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <gmgraves-BA30EF.13360711102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "I.N.R.I." is for the
> > > > > > Latin phrase "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm" Literally. "Jesus of
> > > > > > Nazareth King of the Jews."
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not, "I'm nailed right in."?
> > > >
> > > > Could be. One makes just as much sense as the other.
> > >
> > > Since English with its grammar and spelling was not in existence in the
> > > 1st Century, it could not have been "I'm nailed right in." If it makes
> > > sense to you that it means "I'm nailed right in.", you are being
> > > delusional, and probably need medication.
> > >
> > > By the way, the inscription over Christ's head was probably written in
> > > both Latin and Aramaic, not just Latin, since the rulers of the Jews
> > > complained about the inscription to Pilate.
> >
> > Actually, Biblical scholars (oxymoron?) say that it was written in
> > Greek, Latin, and 1st century Hebrew. And indeed, that piece of wood
> > kept in an Italian Cathedral (I forget which one) and claimed to be THE
> > Titulus, is so written.
>
> Since I am not, nor do I claim to be, a Biblical scholar, I don't know
> for a fact. I was simply trying to bring a little truth into the
> conversation.
>
> Your theory certainly sounds plausible, however. In fact, it is more
> reasonable than mine. Thank you. However, "1st Century Hebrew" was
> more than possibly "Aramaic", since the "dead language" (It was pretty
> dead by that time -- much like Latin today) of Hebrew was only spoken
> and written by the priests and other scholars of that time, and then
> only for religious or official reasons, such as on holy days and in
> Biblical texts.
>
> >
> > > Evidently,they were
> > > concerned about it because the people gathered around the Cross were
> > > able to read the inscription.
>
> Since the common people spoke and wrote in Aramaic, and were able to
> read the inscription, I tend to believe that the inscription was not
> written in Hebrew, but rather in Aramaic.

Except that most Aramaic speakers couldn't read and write. Hebrew (and
Greek and Latin) was the language of the learned.

>
> > > The rulers of the Jews wouldn't have
> > > wanted an inscription proclaiming Jesus as the ruler of the Jews on the
> > > Cross of a supposed "criminal". It would be very bad "propaganda" for
> > > their own cause among the people.
>
> It is possible, however, that the Romans would have had the inscription
> written in the "official languages" of the day (as you suggest), rather
> than the language of the common people, for their own ulterior motives,
> or simply because the Romans were "official" to the max.)

Or simply because Aramaic was meaningless since most Aramaic speakers
couldn't read and most of the people who could read knew latin, greek,
and/or hebrew.
.

Loading