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

In article <151020050931301453%invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Donald L McDaniel <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article
> <gmgraves-9721CF.11374814102005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George
> Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > It's possible because Aramaic is the Language of the Assyrians and the
> > Jews picked it up during the First Diaspora when they were captives of
> > the Babylonians. Though most of the Dead Sea Scrolls were Hebrew, some
> > of the documents were written in Aramaic, and the names found on the
> > "death chips" on Mount Masada were written in Aramaic by the Zealot
> > defenders.
>
> Also, Aramaic was an "official language" of that time period.
> However, I tend to believe that the Romans would have had the
> inscription include the Aramaic translation simply because so many
> people would be able to read it.

Actually, very few people would have been able to read it as most
Judeans were illiterate.

> My personal opinion of the Hebrews is that they would have been much
> more able to read and write than the nations around them simply because
> their religion was a religion "of the Book", and they would have needed
> to be able to at least read one or more languages, especially the
> language of the Book.

Not so. That's what the Priesthood and the Rabbis were for. People had
the Torah read to them.

> Part of the Law of Moses tells the people that
> they were to discuss the Law with each other in their every-day lives
> on an everyday basis.

> In addition, many Hebrews were engaged in commercial enterprises, and
> would have had to be able to read and write various languages (although
> the majority of the people were probably farmers or other occupations
> necessary for an agrarian economy.)
>
> >
> > > > > Evidently,they were
> > > > > concerned about it because the people gathered around the Cross were
> > > > > able to read the inscription.
>
> I'm sure that enough of the people gathered around the Cross would have
> been able to read one of the languages written on the inscription
> enough to be able to share its meaning to those around them who did not
> read or write. After all, many "middle class" people (who probably
> would have been able to read or write in one of the languages) also
> were interested in Jesus, and had followed him, much like people
> followed the Grateful Dead (or the band's remaining members) around
> today. Even Jesus Himself was able to read Hebrew (since He read out
> loud the Torah reading of a Synagog at least once.
> In addition, He was
> able to discourse with the scholars at the age of 12. He would have
> had to be able to read the Scriptures enough to discourse intelligently
> about them (note that He astounded the scholars by His knowledge of the
> Scriptures), so I assume his parents also read it enough to teach it to
> Him.

Yes. I said in another thread that I thought that your Christ Figure
would almost assuredly be illiterate, but After I posted, I realized
that it is said that Jesus astounded the scholars of the temple when he
was 12. Obviously he went to school and likely learned to read Hebrew.

> > > 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.
>
> It is also possible that the inscription may have been written in
> Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, as you have suggested
>
> > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> To prove this, the rulers of the Jews DID complain to the Romans when
> they saw the inscription. The Romans simply shrugged it off, and said
> "What has been written has been written." (or words to that effect).
>
> > >
> > > 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.)
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, the use of "I.N.R.I" in paintings is more than probably an
> > > > > artifice of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than normal Latin usage
> > > > > of the 1st Century.
> > >
> > > I say this because I've personally never seen an ancient Latin
> > > inscription which used acronyms. Possibly someone else has.
> >
> > Actually I.N.R.I. was probably a device used by renaissance painters
> > because they couldn't write small enough with a paint brush to fit the
> > whole inscription.
>
> That certainly sounds reasonable and plausible.
.

Loading