Christopher Hitchens 1-0 Tony Blair

[Derek Smith]

The real Apache said:

The Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation and much of it was divinely inspired by Pagan religions from which the Christians pinched any little morsel that suited their fancy. The Virgin Mary was not a virgin until she was dead two hundred years, the Christians stole that myth from Athena who had been a virgin for three thousand years before Christ was born and five thousand years before Doris Day was a virgin.

I think Mary was only a virgin from 1854 following the papul bull. However, this was a guess until the first vatican council said that the pope was ineffable and pretty cool so therefore could not be/do/say wrong stuff. Unless another later pope disagreed with him. This was in 1870.

However, the 'logic' was - briefly and in the vernacular - that Mary could not know original sin and still give birth to the christ.

Before that there was a suggestion of immaculate conception, generally taught, although the bible, I seem to remember, says that it was Mary's birth that was via immaculate conception. There is a big difference between IC and being a vigin.

Bit tough on Athena, being a virgin for five thousand years now. And to think I was getting to believe I was being left behind when a teenager.

Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 30th November 19:24

[enioldjoe]

Derek Smith said:

The real Apache said:

The Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation and much of it was divinely inspired by Pagan religions from which the Christians pinched any little morsel that suited their fancy. The Virgin Mary was not a virgin until she was dead two hundred years, the Christians stole that myth from Athena who had been a virgin for three thousand years before Christ was born and five thousand years before Doris Day was a virgin.

I think Mary was only a virgin from 1854 following the papul bull. However, this was a guess until the first vatican council said that the pope was ineffable and pretty cool so therefore could not be/do/say wrong stuff. Unless another later pope disagreed with him. This was in 1870.

However, the 'logic' was - briefly and in the vernacular - that Mary could not know original sin and still give birth to the christ.

Before that there was a suggestion of immaculate conception, generally taught, although the bible, I seem to remember, says that it was Mary's birth that was via immaculate conception. There is a big difference between IC and being a vigin.

Bit tough on Athena, being a virgin for five thousand years now. And to think I was getting to believe I was being left behind when a teenager.

Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 30th November 19:24

Maybe a bit before 1854.

In the book of Isaiah the Prophet, written around 700bc, in ch 7.v14 it says: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"

The Hebrew word for 'sign' here, 'ot', is always in the context of a supernatural miracle.

When translated in the 3rdC by Jewish scholars - the Septuagint, 'almah' was translated 'parthenos', the Greek word which only means 'virgin'. The translators had no axe to grind as of course Jesus wasn't to appear until hundreds of years later....

[Derek Smith]

enioldjoe said:

Maybe a bit before 1854.

In the book of Isaiah the Prophet, written around 700bc, in ch 7.v14 it says: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"

Not really the same. The accolade was awarded because of an expectation. One could suggest that he was, more likely, Brian as his mother wasn't a virgin.

There were other anomalies of course. There was no census so there was no birth in Bethlehem but that (too?) was brought in to fulfil another prophecy.

[grumbledoak]

'Almah' only really meant young single woman. They aren't, and weren't, all virgins. But the combination of a bit of mistranslation, the deification of Jesus at Nicea, and the myth of Papal infallability have twisted the real story into the genuinely daft.

[Derek Smith]

My house, name of Pentheos, used to be used by nuns as a domicile with their main prems being next door. The suggestion was that it was to denote that all the women inside were virgins via Athena Parthenos.

We had a party and one of the attendees was a Sussex uni classics chap - I know how to live life in the fast lane. He said that it was named after an ancient Greek god. I didn't take much notice (he was more or less drunk) but when in Italy we went to a ceramics gallery and ordered letters on small tiles to spell the name. The young chap asked what it was meant to spell and we discussed in his poor Italian and my poorer Italian the problems with knowing who to believe.

It turned out his father in law in Germany (still with me?) was a lecturer on ancient Greek mythology. He phoned his f-i-l and it seems that the accepted Anglicised spelling of Pentheus is wrong and the correct way was Pentheos. We were told that the poor chap was torn limb from limb by rampaging women, including his mother, who cut his head off (everyone's a critic, ain't that the truth).

So another problem with translation or were the nuns trying to tell us something?

Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 30th November 20:54

[enioldjoe]

Derek Smith said:

enioldjoe said:

Maybe a bit before 1854.

In the book of Isaiah the Prophet, written around 700bc, in ch 7.v14 it says: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel"

Not really the same. The accolade was awarded because of an expectation. One could suggest that he was, more likely, Brian as his mother wasn't a virgin.

There were other anomalies of course. There was no census so there was no birth in Bethlehem but that (too?) was brought in to fulfil another prophecy.

The expectation, based upon a belief that the Gospel writers fabricated the accounts and Mary's virginity, would mean then: why wasn't he called Immanuel?

In Mt 1. 21 it says " She will give birth to a son, and you shall give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins" It then goes on to say...

" All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet,"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" - which means God with us'

So Immanuel or Jesus?. Well, in line with Hebraic thought - both! You could call him Immanuel, but it's more convenient to call him Jesus.ie 'God is Salvation'

[enioldjoe]

grumbledoak said:

'Almah' only really meant young single woman. They aren't, and weren't, all virgins. But the combination of a bit of mistranslation, the deification of Jesus at Nicea, and the myth of Papal infallability have twisted the real story into the genuinely daft.

Depends on the context with 'Almah"

Jesus wasn't deified at Nicea.

[grumbledoak]

Are either Immanuel or Jesus ancient Hebrew names, or transliterations?

[grumbledoak]

enioldjoe said:

Jesus wasn't deified at Nicea.

Just type the words into google.

Jews and Muslims consider Jesus a (mortal) prophet, as did many early Christians. But the Coptics didn't need the early church's priests, so Jesus was deified and the Coptics largely put to the sword.

[Derek Smith]

grumbledoak said:

enioldjoe said:

Jesus wasn't deified at Nicea.

Just type the words into google.

Jews and Muslims consider Jesus a (mortal) prophet, as did many early Christians. But the Coptics didn't need the early church's priests, so Jesus was deified and the Coptics largely put to the sword.

It's a hard life.

You'd think that Jesus would have mentioned being the son of god wouldn't you.

[enioldjoe]

grumbledoak said:

enioldjoe said:

Jesus wasn't deified at Nicea.

Just type the words into google.

Jews and Muslims consider Jesus a (mortal) prophet, as did many early Christians. But the Coptics didn't need the early church's priests, so Jesus was deified and the Coptics largely put to the sword.

Jesus is also to be found in the Old Testament.

[enioldjoe]

Derek Smith said:

grumbledoak said:

enioldjoe said:

Jesus wasn't deified at Nicea.

Just type the words into google.

Jews and Muslims consider Jesus a (mortal) prophet, as did many early Christians. But the Coptics didn't need the early church's priests, so Jesus was deified and the Coptics largely put to the sword.

It's a hard life.

You'd think that Jesus would have mentioned being the son of god wouldn't you.

In John 4 25, 26

"The woman said to Him " I know that Messiah is coming(who is called the Christ) "When He comes, he will tell us all things"

Jesus said to her. "I who speak to you am He"

It is also implicit throughout the Gospels, as a reading of them will demonstrate.

[grumbledoak]

John? Now you really are having a giggle. He's the least reliable of the first four testaments.

[Victor McDade]

An appropriate time for a *bump* given the timing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA&sns...

The Hitchen/Blair debate - the full video. Its long (1 hour 45 mins) but well worth watching imo.

[Halb]

The more airtime the better, this should be on the telly.

[TheHeretic]

Victor McDade said:

An appropriate time for a *bump* given the timing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA&sns...

The Hitchen/Blair debate - the full video. Its long (1 hour 45 mins) but well worth watching imo.

I think I said so previously, but for such a good orator, Blair was utterly outgunned in this debate. His basic argument was "well, we're not all bad" and that seemed to be it...

The Hitch is dead, long live the Hitch.

[havoc]

The man will cast a very long shadow behind him...and in a much better way than Blair!

RIP CH