Many old paintings (of skill and sensitivity) depict a young woman holding
a nude Christ, with the baby wearing an adult-like face and making a
religious hand symbol.
These depictions conflict with modern taste in a number of ways. Most
obviously, no modern baby photographer gets requests for ph
ot;These are actually pretty mild
examples of a precocious-looking Jesus."
Best wishes,
Stewart McCoy.
- Original Message -
From: "Spring, aus dem, Rainer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Old relig
"Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Given that lutenists' musical literature was contemporary with these paintings,
> perhaps one
> may ask here how a modern person can understand the esthetics which produced these
> paintings.
I shall make a cautious attempt. Please, note: not a serm
On 19 Sep 2004, "Mathias Rösel" wrote:
> First, there is the creed that Christ died for our sins (i. e. for us,
> ... baby but Christ who delivers entire man from the curse of sin.
Thank you.
But, no modern depiction of Jesus emphasizes Him as a nude man-baby. For
example, I doubt that modern Ba
"Herbert Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> But, no modern depiction of Jesus emphasizes Him as a nude man-baby. For
> example, I doubt that modern Baptists have a nude in any of their
> churches.
..
> address this difference in style and taste between 2004 and 1570, an
> understanding of which
At 11:47 PM 9/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Many old paintings (of skill and sensitivity) depict a young woman holding
>a nude Christ, with the baby wearing an adult-like face and making a
>religious hand symbol.
Could you cite an example or two so I can see what you are talking about?
There are
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Caroline Usher wrote:
> At 11:47 PM 9/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Many old paintings (of skill and sensitivity) depict a young woman holding
> >a nude Christ, with the baby wearing an adult-like face and making a
> >religious hand symbol.
>
> Could you cite an example
Herbert Ward wrote
> These do not look like baby faces to me. Especially around the eyes. I
> guess it (the adult face) was a symbol of authority which the folks back
> then needed to feel secure, like they needed kings and an infallible
> omnipotent Church.
These are actually pretty mild examp
> -Original Message-
> From: Howard Posner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:02 PM
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Old religious paintings.
>
> Herbert Ward wrote
>
> > These do not look like baby faces to me. Especial
>>> These do not look like baby faces to me. Especially around
>> the eyes.
>>> I guess it (the adult face) was a symbol of authority which
>> the folks
>>> back then needed to feel secure, like they needed kings and an
>>> infallible omnipotent Church.
>>
>> These are actually pretty mild exa
"Spring, aus dem, Rainer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> I think it's u-declination. Therefore the plural is Jesus with a long
> "u".
It isn't. In Hebrew / Aramaic, it is Yeshu, with both long and closed e
and u (like in French nee and in English zoo). It is not certain which
syllable was stresse
> However, I'm wondering, Herbert, if you want to know all of this or if
> you'd rather just like to express your opinions about all of those
> strange old things.
He has to be careful, there are a few herbivores on the list...
RT
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www
Dear Sirs:
I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the recent spate of
postings concerning English, German, Hebrew and Greek grammar. I would
never dream of bringing up such things myself, and I'm as pedantic as they
come.
Rear Admiral Howard Posner, M.P., OBE, KBE, JD UCLA
PS:
> PPS: Mr. R? is informative as always, but I believe all references to
> Jesus in Hebrew sources postdate the (Greek) Christian bible, which would
> mean that "Yeshu" in the Hebrew sources is a transliteration of the Greek
> "IHCOYC (nom.) IHCOY (gen.) IHCOY (dat.) IHCOYN (acc.) IHCOY (voc.)" and
> PS: It may be appropriate for Mr. Turovsky to say "precocious-looking
> 'likenesses' of Jesus," but it would be the Jesice themselves, not the
> "likenesses" that are precocious.
That's why I used the "looking" modifier.
RT
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartm
> Rear Admiral Howard Posner, M.P.,
Last time we met (17 years...) you were admirably callipygian.
RT
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Dear Admiral Posner,
I'm sorry, I needs must say, to inform you that, no, the very name Jesus
does occur in Hebrew sources which predate the New Testament, indeed.
Have a look into the books of Ezrah/Nehemya (26 times, especially Ezrah
2-3, Nehemya 7-9), if you will.
There is, by the way, a very
> There is, by the way, a very early version of the Bible in Aramaic in
> existence, containing the New Testament as well (and, so, the testimony
> to Yêshû meshîha) and probably predating the oldest surviving Hebrew
> manuscripts, which is called the Peshitta.
Interesting. General adoption of Hebr
Mathias Rösel wrote:
> the very name Jesus
> does occur in Hebrew sources which predate the New Testament, indeed.
> Have a look into the books of Ezrah/Nehemya (26 times, especially Ezrah
> 2-3, Nehemya 7-9), if you will.
I will, but my point was that the person Christians know as Jesus of
Nazar
> mentioned in Greek sources, so it had to be be surmised from the Greek what
> he called himself in Hebrew, or so I surmise.
You meant Aramaic.
RT
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>Dear Howard and Rainer,
>
>The plural doesn't exist. Jesus was unique.
Tell that to John Cleese! (For those of you who remember Cleese as
Michaelangelo in one of my favorite Monty Python skits).
--
Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/
To get on or off this list see lis
RT, this is stale thread, but it is so seldom I agree with you I have to
revive it.
> Except it sounds a lot like "insurances". An appropriate way would be
> "precocious-looking "likenesses" of Jesus".
> RT
Perfect, and now you all understand the English language. When in doubt
re-cast the senten
22 matches
Mail list logo
