I was just thinking out loud. I never understood why most Universities insist teaching Ancient Greek in this bizarre way of pronouncing each letter separately where there are so many written indications of how letters and letter combinations were pronounced. And when there is a living language which also can provide serious clues about that.
I'm fairly sure that the person portrayed in the Gospels will have had at least some rudimentary Koine. Aramaic perhaps sufficed in the Levant, but he spent his childhood in Egypt, where as a foreigner it would have been the easiest medium of interaction; not to mention Egyptian Jews were highly Hellenised. He also seems to have been fairly well-educated overall.
That's my take as well - mainly that we don't know if He spoke Greek, primarily He spoke Aramaic, He might have had some or even extensive koine knowledge, with it being the more or less lingua franca of the general region/empire, but also it doesn't really matter. Well, apart from the fact that we insist he couldn't know every language and every thing, because that would actually diminish His humanity (being a latent or even outspoken Apollinarism).
What's funny is that the early Christian circles in Rome actually definitely spoke primarily Greek ... and the infusion of Latin came only later, with the influence of North Africa (Tertullian, Augustine etc.) - I've heard several lectures on the importance and overall height of culture in North Africa overall.
... and the infusion of Latin came only later, with the influence of North Africa (Tertullian, Augustine etc.) - I've heard several lectures on the importance and overall height of culture in North Africa overall.
Tertullian, the first"Latinisator" of the Church and one of the most important people in the development of theology (he was the first to use the term "Trinity", "economy" - in the theological sense, not accounting - "person" etc.) lived cca 155-220 AD, which means about the tail end of the Apostolic Fathers.
However, the actual full adoption of Latin came only after the split of the empire, in 395 or so, with Jerome translating the Bible (and other texts) into Latin as the primary language of the West (although the Pope had commissioned Vulgate some time before that already, to revise the earlier Vetus Latina). And even then it was not an immediate thing, with the Latin in the East and the Greek in the West remaining present and influential quite some time afterwards.
Fun fact, Tertullian's also the only heretic (if he indeed was fully Montanist, if Montanism indeed was heterodox and if he hasn't turned away from it towards ortodoxy before his death as I believe Augustine has said) or at least, the only non-Saint that is still consistently and repeatedly quoted in Magisterium and other Church documents.
Tertullian, the first"Latinisator" of the Church and one of the most important people in the development of theology (he was the first to use the term "Trinity", "economy" - in the theological sense, not accounting - "person" etc.) lived cca 155-220 AD, which means about the tail end of the Apostolic Fathers.
Speaking of which… Trinity as a concept is completely man made right? I don’t think there’s anything like this in the gospels or early texts?
For example in Orthodoxy I remember being taught that you cannot separate the trinity. But says who? And what exactly means that?
And what it means in real life that the spirit comes from the Father or for the Son? Or not from the Son?
I always thought that the Catholic interpretation had something to do with the power of the Pope as god’s representative i.e., Father passes to Son (Pope) and he to humans whereas if it only comes from Father, it’s no-ones exclusivity.
Just to note that this is purely my interpretation (or more precisely feeling) not something that we’ve been taught. As the matter of fact I don’t think I ever heard anyone explaining what “filioque” means in real life.
Speaking of which… Trinity as a concept is completely man made right? I don’t think there’s anything like this in the gospels or early texts?
For example in Orthodoxy I remember being taught that you cannot separate the trinity. But says who? And what exactly means that?
This is beyond the purpose and scope of this thread, but no, it's certainly not "man-made", or at least not much more or less man-made than the entire Scripture is, if you want to believe that. There is a difference between what the Scripture says explicitly, what implicitly and what can be deduced from that, true, and there is a difference between a concept and its name or the proper nomenclature/explanation/theory, but there is always a basis for the theology and - believe it or not, there is always a reason.*
Fun fact, every proclamation of a dogma ("a truth that is put before us as divinely revealed") must have some kind of basis in the Scripture, even the later "controversial" ones like Immaculate Conception and Assumption - there the basis and the Scriptural deduction is often somewhat wonky, but it is there - for example one of the Scriptural argumentations for Immaculate Conception is Mary being called Κεχαριτωμένη in Luke's gospel.
What is the kerygma (the main message of Christianity)? That God became man, for us, to save us, to sanctify us, to love us. That requires Jesus to be of the same stature as God and the entire New Testament is about it. Jesus behaves as a possessor of divine dignity (which is why He was crucified, after all). Paul says it explicitly in Philippians:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Taking away Christ's divinity makes Christianity a mockery, a less than what it was ever meant to be. You don't have to believe it, but you have to believe Christians DID believe it. Because it's incredibly important for everything, including our worldview, our spiritual life etc.
Also, the Scripture more or less states that Father and Son are two distinct entities.
So there you have 2/3rds of the Trinity already. Yes, you never find the word "Trinity" in the Bible, but so there's no mention of the word "Devil" in Stones' Sympathy for the Devil - that's hardly relevant.
As Matthew 28:19 says - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." That's not just random babbling.
Also, there is a difference between not having a formal "positive" definition (and merely avoiding heresies, which do tend to have real, tangible implications and consequences), which the Church didn't adopt until various councils from 325 onwards ... and between not understanding or living the concept of faith until then.
Before that, there were, yes, negative definitions - "this is not what we believe". Like Sabellianism (or modalism) - saying that God is only one and that He always just dresses as the Father and as the Son and as the Holy Spirit... but that both goes against the Scripture (I'm too lazy to elaborate, sorry) AND it would imply that God is lying. That He is pretending something. That the one and only thing that really matters - our relationship with Him - is fake on one side.
Sorry, but this is really not the form nor the time, I could write much more and reason better than I do here, but I can't now, really.
---
But I'll tackle this, so that you might get what I'm hinting about
And what it means in real life that the spirit comes from the Father or for the Son? Or not from the Son?
I always thought that the Catholic interpretation had something to do with the power of the Pope as god’s representative i.e., Father passes to Son (Pope) and he to humans whereas if it only comes from Father, it’s no-ones exclusivity.
Just to note that this is purely my interpretation (or more precisely feeling) not something that we’ve been taught. As the matter of fact I don’t think I ever heard anyone explaining what “filioque” means in real life.
This IS pretty important. Because what Christians believe is that after the Resurrection and Ascension, Christ has given us the Spirit, the one to be with us, to lead us into the fullness of the Truth, to sanctify us.
The importance of filioque - It is based on the theology of giving - The Father gives everything but His fatherhood to Son, Son gives everything but His sonhood to Father. The Spirit, the third person, is the result of their mutual love. Therefore Son can "give" Spirit much as the Father can (because the relationship is reciprocal) - and if Son, then WE can - John 7:37 says this explicitly:
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. 38 He who believes in me, as[e] the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Why is this important? If we teach and preach, don't we "give" Spirit? If we baptise and marry, don't we "give" Spirit? If we participate in ordination in the Holy Orders .. or if we proclaim the forgiveness of sins - and we put our hands on the person's head - don't we "give" Spirit?
That's a pretty big thing for your worldview.
---
Now, this is not something that even the Eastern fathers would deny.
Technically - (liturgically) - filioque is an example of both sides being stupid. It first started in the area of today's Spain where there were many converts both from Islam and primarily Arianism (the movement that denied the divinity of Christ) and this word was added to the credo for the newly baptised in order to stress the homousian nature of Father and Son. At that time, the Eastern patriarchs actually found out about it and at first were okay with that, but later on both sides started whipping their dicks out and the West accused the East of avoiding the word and of latent Arianism (which is what West was more afraid) and the East started accusing the West of either subordinatianism (that they are of uneven footing) or Tritheism (believing in three gods) (both of which are what the East was more afraid). And then the bickering and accusations and personal antipathies and everything escalated and there was the first great Schism.
I saw this once, at the very beginning of my Maiden fandom, and completely forgot about it since. It's kind of strange, I have the feeling there was a lot more knowledge about things like this in the community back then.
Just wanted to share some personal stuff, if you don't mind.
Last four years have been pretty much tough to be honest. I spent good chunk of time for getting my dream job in the civil services which is among the hardest of the examinations. I tried really hard, but no fruitful results and learned the hard way that it takes more than just crude efforts and many factors come into play, even a small bit of luck and blessings. These days getting a government job is pretty much a challenge in itself. But anyway, today I joined as an Assistant Professor in a government college. Though on an ad-hoc basis and pay is decent at best, but hey, you gotta start from somewhere! And by God's grace I may as well get some push to continue striving to get into the civil services as I have atleast secured a place now.
Just wanted to share some personal stuff, if you don't mind.
Last four years have been pretty much tough to be honest. I spent good chunk of time for getting my dream job in the civil services which is among the hardest of the examinations. I tried really hard, but no fruitful results and learned the hard way that it takes more than just crude efforts and many factors come into play, even a small bit of luck and blessings. These days getting a government job is pretty much a challenge in itself. But anyway, today I joined as an Assistant Professor in a government college. Though on an ad-hoc basis and pay is decent at best, but hey, you gotta start from somewhere! And by God's grace I may as well get some push to continue striving to get into the civil services as I have atleast secured a place now.
Do you ever feel like you don't know what direction you're headed? I've had that feeling with my work lately - I've been involved in digital marketing for years - I've run campaigns on 5 continents, worked with the largest agencies and consulting firms, and have over 20 industry certifications, but lately I've been feeling lost. My work is increasingly pushing me towards the technical aspects of my work (programming, etc.), which I honestly hate. I can program in several languages and talk to developers about things like the order in which resources are rendered in a web browser and the impact of this pipeline on campaign performance, but on the other hand - I'm 36 and I simply increasingly feel like I'd rather sit and read a book or go for a walk than sit on page 450 of a technical specification. I had an ambitious plan to start writing a book this year (something I've been dreaming about for 15 years), but I wrote 2 whole paragraphs. I'm increasingly thinking whether it's worth developing in these areas or maybe I should slow down, find some quiet corporate job where I can use my 15 years of experience in marketing, behavioral economics and instead of constantly sitting over courses, take my wife on a folklore trip through my country - you know, ghosts and monsters from folk beliefs etc. which I've also been thinking about for years.
I wanted to post this on the Therion thread, but I guess it doesn't exist and I didn't want to start it with this particular post. back in like.... 2008 my mom and I went to Parral Chihuahua for the Jornadas Villistas. They're like a week long party celebrating the revolutionary "hero" Francisco, "Pancho" Villa. It ends with a reenactment of his murder. I was REALLY into making movies/videos back then and I filmed the reenactment and used Therion's version of Carl Orff's Carina Burana as the soundtrack. I've been laughing so hard all morning since I rewatched it for the first time since then. It's so fucking dramatic, very me from 2008, but I thought you guys might get a kick out of it too:
I've been laughing so hard all morning since I rewatched it for the first time since then. It's so fucking dramatic, very me from 2008, but I thought you guys might get a kick out of it too:
Very interesting. What about this woman? Her wife? She had the balls to come into the scene but they didn't touch her. Anyway nice effort and it got me reading about Mexican Revolution.
Very interesting. What about this woman? Her wife? She had the balls to come into the scene but they didn't touch her. Anyway nice effort and it got me reading about Mexican Revolution.
Can't remember if it was his wife or one of his mistresses, but yeah. I love how community theater it all is with the guys playing the assassins end up just standing around for a while like, "so, what now?" lol. so good.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I'm increasingly thinking whether it's worth developing in these areas or maybe I should slow down, find some quiet corporate job where I can use my 15 years of experience in marketing, behavioral economics and instead of constantly sitting over courses, take my wife on a folklore trip through my country - you know, ghosts and monsters from folk beliefs etc. which I've also been thinking about for years.