- Thread starter frank12
- Start date
Thought for the Day
Showbiz names?
Some of these are Hebrew names that have come into English unchanged: others are English equivalents of Hebrew names. Jesus, for example, was Yeshua.
John (Yochanan), James (Jacob), Matthew (Matityahu) and Simon (Shim'on, Simeon) are derived from Hebrew names, Thomas is from the Aramaic/Hebrew Ta'oma, and the rest come from Greek.
Peter
Derived from the Greek Πετρος (Petros) meaning "stone". This is a translation used in most versions of the New Testament of the name Cephas, meaning "stone" in Aramaic, which was given to the apostle Simon by Jesus (compare Matthew 16:18 and John 1:42). Simon Peter was the most prominent of the apostles during Jesus' ministry and is often considered the first pope.
Andrew
From the Greek name Ανδρεας (Andreas), which was derived from ανηρ (aner) "man" (genitive ανδρος (andros) "of a man"). In the New Testament the apostle Andrew, the first disciple to join Jesus, is the brother of Simon Peter. According to tradition, he later preached in the Black Sea region, with some legends saying he was crucified on an X-shaped cross. Andrew, being a Greek name, was probably only a nickname or a translation of his real Hebrew name, which is not known.
Philip
From the Greek name Φιλιππος (Philippos) which means "friend of horses", composed of the elements φιλος (philos) "friend, lover" and ‘ιππος (hippos) "horse". This was the name of five kings of Macedon, including Philip II the father of Alexander the Great. The name appears in the New Testament belonging to two people who are regarded as saints. First, one of the twelve apostles, and second, an early figure in the Christian church known as Philip the Deacon.
behindthename.com
Peter
Derived from the Greek Πετρος (Petros) meaning "stone". This is a translation used in most versions of the New Testament of the name Cephas, meaning "stone" in Aramaic, which was given to the apostle Simon by Jesus (compare Matthew 16:18 and John 1:42). Simon Peter was the most prominent of the apostles during Jesus' ministry and is often considered the first pope.
Andrew
From the Greek name Ανδρεας (Andreas), which was derived from ανηρ (aner) "man" (genitive ανδρος (andros) "of a man"). In the New Testament the apostle Andrew, the first disciple to join Jesus, is the brother of Simon Peter. According to tradition, he later preached in the Black Sea region, with some legends saying he was crucified on an X-shaped cross. Andrew, being a Greek name, was probably only a nickname or a translation of his real Hebrew name, which is not known.
Philip
From the Greek name Φιλιππος (Philippos) which means "friend of horses", composed of the elements φιλος (philos) "friend, lover" and ‘ιππος (hippos) "horse". This was the name of five kings of Macedon, including Philip II the father of Alexander the Great. The name appears in the New Testament belonging to two people who are regarded as saints. First, one of the twelve apostles, and second, an early figure in the Christian church known as Philip the Deacon.
behindthename.com
frank, your bible threads are seriously disappointing. you are like a 12 year old boy who's looking for the reasons not to go to church on sunday mornings because that's when dragonball z is on tv. i had bible at the university as a part of literature studies. it's a complex literary work and lots of it has to do with translations. names and places are licencia poetica. the closest local name was picked up to replace original names. it wasn't that difficult because there were no celebrities who gave their crotch fruits idiotic names so they stand out more. the pool of names was limited and consisted of two main groups: those derived from greek/latin and those derived from local dialects.
in addition to that translations were often based on the latin version so names were straightforward issue having already been changed to fit latin. later on it would not make sense to adjust the names because they were already embedded in the culture. the same goes for historical names of people and places, they match local languages of the translators and not the oryginal works, much like warszawa is warsaw in english or varsovia in spanish.
you do not have to be religious to take interest in the bible. some parts are boring but at times it is some seriously good writing.
in addition to that translations were often based on the latin version so names were straightforward issue having already been changed to fit latin. later on it would not make sense to adjust the names because they were already embedded in the culture. the same goes for historical names of people and places, they match local languages of the translators and not the oryginal works, much like warszawa is warsaw in english or varsovia in spanish.
you do not have to be religious to take interest in the bible. some parts are boring but at times it is some seriously good writing.
The Bible was written over a period of roughly 2,000 years by 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages. There were gospels that never made into the bible. Call that creative editing. All gospels were all supposedly inspired by god, and yet, several were left out. Call that creative condensing. Stories were passed down from one century to the next, in the process things got added and things got deleted. Call that creative license.
The Bible lacks any semblance of historical accuracy whatsoever. If you doubt that, simply try telling someone a dramatic story full of details and have them convey it to their neighbor, and then neighbor, and so on and so on until it is passed from one town to the next, one village to another--as it spreads across the island of Dominican Republic, and then see how close it remains to its originality after as little as 30 days, or 7 days, or even 24 hours?
Anyone who takes a book serious that was written by a minimum of 40 different men, over 2000 years, and in three different languages ought to have their heads examined.
There is absolutely nothing remotely accurate in the Bible--including the possibility of the existence of Jesus Christ. There were many, many Messiahs walking around in Jesus's supposed years--all claiming a direct phone line with god. What makes one more accurate then the other?
Frank
The Bible lacks any semblance of historical accuracy whatsoever. If you doubt that, simply try telling someone a dramatic story full of details and have them convey it to their neighbor, and then neighbor, and so on and so on until it is passed from one town to the next, one village to another--as it spreads across the island of Dominican Republic, and then see how close it remains to its originality after as little as 30 days, or 7 days, or even 24 hours?
Anyone who takes a book serious that was written by a minimum of 40 different men, over 2000 years, and in three different languages ought to have their heads examined.
There is absolutely nothing remotely accurate in the Bible--including the possibility of the existence of Jesus Christ. There were many, many Messiahs walking around in Jesus's supposed years--all claiming a direct phone line with god. What makes one more accurate then the other?
Frank
I agree that Azimov wrote an excellent concordance to both the Old and New Testaments. Most such works start with the premise that the Bible was essentially divine, and that the Biblical "scholars" job was to explain all the passages that people (according to the"scholar" and his particular denomination) misinterpreted, or pointed out as being impossible or just silly. Azimov's approach was more scholarly, and his discussion was focused on what the writer meant. Bible study groups are far less accurate than scientific study groups, and often less than book club discussions.
Every serious scholar agrees that the version of the NT that we accept today as translated was written down at least 50 years after the events described. In those 50 years, there was a major Jewish-Roman War from 66 to 73 of the Common Era (AD) which was lost by the Jews. There is not one word of this in the NT.
There is a lot of interesting folklore, history and other anthropological data in the Bible, as well as some goofy stuff and rather a lot of extremely boring rantings.
The Gospels were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and most people tend to believe that these were disciples and eyewitnesses, and that is either mostly and entirely unlikely. Mark and Luke are Roman names, and Jesus had very little to do with Greeks or Romans and barely spoke to a few Samaritans, according to the NT. Then there is the influence of other religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Manicheanism
and Mithraism, which seem to have wormed their way into the legend.
Of course, the greatest obvious omission is that there is no Book of Jesus. The apparent role of Jesus was to bring the word of God to man, or perhaps the Jews, and the authority in the Jewish religion has been the written word since way before Jesus, but Jesus apparently left nothing written down.
There are a couple of fictional works that I have found very interesting and entertaining. First is The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, by Jos? Saramago, a Portuguese novelist with an extremely unique style who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998 -probably not entirely for this novel- and was excommunicated by the Holy Mother Church ans ****ed off a lot of Israelis as well. He was married to a Spanish woman and lived in exile in Lanzarote, in the Canary islands. Sraamago was born in 1922 and died in 1922.
The Gospel According to Jesus Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then there this: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal is the sixth novel by absurdist author Christopher Moore, published in 2002. In this work the author seeks to fill in the "lost" years of Jesus through the eyes of Jesus' childhood pal, "Levi bar Alphaeus who is called Biff". It is imaginative, absurdist and the funniest book on a religious subject I have ever read. It does not seem to have offended anyone much.
Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both books will make you think, if you like to think about the subject, you will probably like them both. Yo creo que hay traducciones a las dos novelas en cristiano.
Every serious scholar agrees that the version of the NT that we accept today as translated was written down at least 50 years after the events described. In those 50 years, there was a major Jewish-Roman War from 66 to 73 of the Common Era (AD) which was lost by the Jews. There is not one word of this in the NT.
There is a lot of interesting folklore, history and other anthropological data in the Bible, as well as some goofy stuff and rather a lot of extremely boring rantings.
The Gospels were attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and most people tend to believe that these were disciples and eyewitnesses, and that is either mostly and entirely unlikely. Mark and Luke are Roman names, and Jesus had very little to do with Greeks or Romans and barely spoke to a few Samaritans, according to the NT. Then there is the influence of other religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, Manicheanism
and Mithraism, which seem to have wormed their way into the legend.
Of course, the greatest obvious omission is that there is no Book of Jesus. The apparent role of Jesus was to bring the word of God to man, or perhaps the Jews, and the authority in the Jewish religion has been the written word since way before Jesus, but Jesus apparently left nothing written down.
There are a couple of fictional works that I have found very interesting and entertaining. First is The Gospel According to Jesus Christ, by Jos? Saramago, a Portuguese novelist with an extremely unique style who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998 -probably not entirely for this novel- and was excommunicated by the Holy Mother Church ans ****ed off a lot of Israelis as well. He was married to a Spanish woman and lived in exile in Lanzarote, in the Canary islands. Sraamago was born in 1922 and died in 1922.
The Gospel According to Jesus Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then there this: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal is the sixth novel by absurdist author Christopher Moore, published in 2002. In this work the author seeks to fill in the "lost" years of Jesus through the eyes of Jesus' childhood pal, "Levi bar Alphaeus who is called Biff". It is imaginative, absurdist and the funniest book on a religious subject I have ever read. It does not seem to have offended anyone much.
Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both books will make you think, if you like to think about the subject, you will probably like them both. Yo creo que hay traducciones a las dos novelas en cristiano.
One of my favorite books of all time is the one you just mentioned: Lamb; the Gospel according to Biff. I've read it twice. It's hilarious, and believe it or not, it is well researched as well. Fantastic book...i'm happy that you mentioned it.
Frank
Wow, I never thought about that!!...I think I will have to renounce my faith now...:ermm:
The letters from Paul are considered by most scholars (christian and non-christian) as written around 50 AD. Less than 20 years after the events concerning Jesus Christ. These are in fact the earliest writings of the New Testament. The four gospels have been written between 70 and 90 AD. In perspective: the earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his life. In general scholars consider these biographies trustworthy. Only in the centuries after that (more than 500 years after Alexander's life, legends were formed. Even though there are signs the gospels were written earlier than the mentioned 40-60 years after Jesus' dead, still 40-60 years is not enough time to create legends. There would still be eye witnesses of the events, probably even enemies of the christian faith that would be more than willing to point out the stories had been invented.
A sign that the gospels have been written a lot earlier is the fact that the book of Acts ends abruptly. The main person in the book of Acts is Paul. At the end of Acts Paul is still alive and under house arrest in Rome. What happened to Paul? Acts doesn't tell, probably while it was written before Paul was killed. Paul was killed in 62.
Acts was written after the gospel according to Luke, (it's the second part of that gospel) meaning Luke was written earlier than that, gospel according to Mark was earlier than Luke. If we take a year for each book, Mark was written in the year 60 AD, less than 30 years after the facts.
What I always wonder is why people like Peter, Paul, John, James would suffer the persecution they suffered for something they knew was a lie? Why would you accept going to exile, or being crucified upside down, being beheaded, etc. for something you made up, if you could just avoid all that by saying, I admit, it's all not true.
i had bible at the university. the exam at the end of that course was so hard only 5 people passed (from over a 100). so we had a second round, verbal test. i went to retake the exam and my teacher says: you claim that the acts end with paul and peter's death? i did not read acts, this is some seriously lame s**t. so i say: i think this book was so boring death would make a better ending from literary point of view.
ha ha, poor woman gave me a major side eye but i wormed my way to A anyways. good times.
anyway, the bible. doctor who was also written by different people, directed by different people and even different actors played the same character. does that not mean there is no continuity within the series and it does not make sense altogether, even is some episodes can be off the mark. it's kind of the same with the bible. the fact that different books were different in different times and by different people is irrelevant to the content of the text. and you have to bow to the editors, that's the best PR work in human history. early christians were smart enough to use older cults, in terms of holy places and traditions of the local people. old religions were not eradicated, they were cleverly absorbed.
i treat bible as a literary work. parts masterpiece and parts just boring, tiring, monstrously pretentious and exhausting catastrophe. i absolutely detest new testament, thou. that is some nasty work. that dude from sosua news could do it better.
ha ha, poor woman gave me a major side eye but i wormed my way to A anyways. good times.
anyway, the bible. doctor who was also written by different people, directed by different people and even different actors played the same character. does that not mean there is no continuity within the series and it does not make sense altogether, even is some episodes can be off the mark. it's kind of the same with the bible. the fact that different books were different in different times and by different people is irrelevant to the content of the text. and you have to bow to the editors, that's the best PR work in human history. early christians were smart enough to use older cults, in terms of holy places and traditions of the local people. old religions were not eradicated, they were cleverly absorbed.
i treat bible as a literary work. parts masterpiece and parts just boring, tiring, monstrously pretentious and exhausting catastrophe. i absolutely detest new testament, thou. that is some nasty work. that dude from sosua news could do it better.