Back in Massachusetts it is pronounced Gloster.....Gloucester, Ma
Except in Mass they don't pronounce the 'R'.
GLA- STA
Was Jesus married?
- Thread starter granfire
- Start date
Except in Mass they don't pronounce the 'R'.
GLA- STA
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Depends on what part of Mass you are in.
Boston and on the Northshore (Where Glouster is) Yes it is Glosta. But in Worcester (pronounced Woster in Worcester) and points west it is pronounced Gloster. But go back to the Northshore Worcester becomes Woosta
I lived in those areas of Mass and spent my young formative years on the Northshore and my older formative years near Worcester so I have the ability to talk funny... just like them
EddieCyrax
Blue Belt
Does it really matter?
In a lot of ways yes. It's fairly well known that the celibacy of RC priests is held to be because Jesus was celibate though in truth it was more that the Vatican was worried about providing for priest's families. The early church including the Celtic Christians allowed it's clergy as well as monks and nuns to marry however the justification for forcing celibacy on it's religious communities is as I said that Jesus was celibate, if he was married however it makes a bit of a mockery of that rule. It's also known that the early Christian church had female disciples as well as female bishops, it seems to have been very much an 'equal opportunity' church something that was again slapped down by the Catholic church and women relegated to the role of either mother or temptress sometimes both.
It doesan't matter to me of course but I do always have concerns when women are held to be lesser or at least not equal beings. If it can be proved Jesus was married perhaps the lot of women would be improved in some places... perhaps.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Well of course it matters....proper pronunciation in Massachusetts means the difference between finding out how to get where you are going and staying lost...I mean if the local linguistics mean nothing then......oh wait.... you were talking about the whole was Jesus married thing weren't you...in that case....no...it is not particularly important
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
All you need to do for that is look into the life and times of Pope Leo X
Well of course it matters....proper pronunciation in Massachusetts means the difference between finding out how to get where you are going and staying lost...I mean if the local linguistics mean nothing then......oh wait.... you were talking about the whole was Jesus married thing weren't you...in that case....no...it is not particularly important
If you are talking about the importance of how things are pronounced try Northern Ireland where pronouncing things differently gets you beaten up and/or kneecapped and most likely killed. Accents are keenly listened to there as they indicate which part of the Province you come from, come from the 'wrong' side and you are in trouble........and all because one side's priests marry and the others don't, among other stuff.
Ah, the translation problem.
If God inspired the writers of the Bible to record his will, why didn't he inspire his followers to translate it correctly? This is a major problem when it comes to the idea of whether Jesus was married. As you've already noted, women would have a different place in the church if this matter could be straightened out. Also, all the priests could finally give up their vow of celibacy...especially if Jesus was getting his groove on.
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
Jesus was NOT married. Jesus was also not an uncommon name at that time. This translated scrap does nothing to the overwhelming unmatched number of manuscripts that are the scriptures. As for translations there is what amounts to a 1% difference between all of them and those are mostly just spelling issues NOTHING in any of the more than 26,0000 copies differs in teaching. NO OTHER book in history comes close to the authenticity of the Bible.
During the time of Jesus and right after his death it was popular, as it is today with popular things, to makeup stories with the same people or plot lines in order to sell books or gain fame and the like. This reference more than likely will come to fall under that category as well I believe.
Jason Brinn
During the time of Jesus and right after his death it was popular, as it is today with popular things, to makeup stories with the same people or plot lines in order to sell books or gain fame and the like. This reference more than likely will come to fall under that category as well I believe.
Jason Brinn
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
Being an expert Troll, blaspheming the word of God or talking about things you can't back up....its seems to be a triple hit!
Actually 'Jesus' is a very unusual name for a Jew of that time, I'd go as far as to say it was never used for Jewish boys in the Palestine of that time.
How do you know what you call the Bible is 'authentic', I'm curious as I can certainly point out many basic mistakes in translation of what you call the Old Testament.
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
You are mistaken. Jesus is a Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua. The name Jesus was used many times. Research this some more and you will find this is the truth.
24,000 handwritten copies that only have about a 1% difference and only in spelling let me KNOW that the Bible is authentic. No other book in history comes close. The Iliad is the next in line with only 643 manuscripts. What I call the OT is the OT. The NT was written in Greek which is a pretty exact language.
Jason Brinn
So, you are saying the Jews of the time called him Jesus? That's as likely as finding an Inuit of the same time called Clive. His name was Joshua, he wasn't Greek or Roman, he was a Jew, calling him Jesus is trying to hide his origins, he was a Jew practising Judaism.
You can call the Old Testament what you like but it isn't the Old Testament. if you are going to use books from other peoples religions at least give a nod in the direction of acknowledging it's origins.
You can call the Old Testament what you like but it isn't the Old Testament. if you are going to use books from other peoples religions at least give a nod in the direction of acknowledging it's origins.
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
The people of his time called him either Yeshua, or Yesu but mostly rabbi. Jesus was a Jew but he wasn't practising Judaism he was fulfilling his own word. I said that Jesus was a common name. It is important when studying people and times from past generations to understand what was actually going on during the times you are studying for proper context and understanding. Rome controlled this area so there were 3 very common languages spoke; Aramaic (most commonly), Greek (by anyone conducting business for the most part) and Hebrew which was used in religious contexts and within the particular community of Jews. People wouldn't have called him Joshua either friend - there is no "J" in the Hebrew language.
I am not using books from "other peoples religions" but rather the complete text of mine. Maybe "other people" should think about why they study parts of books from "other people's religions" first. Jesus is the nod and the origin.
If we are going to debate lets use facts and things that can be discussed without spiraling downward. I truly want to help anyone wishing to understand these matters in all love and peace. I am not trying to convince anyone, nor does the Bible or Jesus need any defending.
Jason Brinn
So, you think you understand what was happening in Palestine in the time of Joshua Bar Joseph, mmm, okay then you will of course know that messiah doesn't mean what you think it does and that messiahs were ten a penny. Judaism has never been a religion where everyone followed completely a party line, a lot of people were fulfilling their 'own word', nothing that your 'Jesus' said is new to Judaism at all, it fact it's very Jewish in it's origin and it's practice. It wasn't changed until non Jews started joining in the party.
If you aren't using books from other religions what, exactly, do you think the thing you know as the Old Testament is? I'm not sure how you think you can explain the 'Old Testment' to me.
If you aren't using books from other religions what, exactly, do you think the thing you know as the Old Testament is? I'm not sure how you think you can explain the 'Old Testment' to me.
jasonbrinn
Purple Belt
I know I have an educated understanding from studying the time thats it. Jesus was/is not Joshua Bar Joseph. You don't know what I think messiah means because I haven't stated that yet - unless you can read minds. NO ONE said the things that Jesus did, if you think so then you are mistaken or deceived.
Jesus said he is THE ONLY way to God. Jesus said he is GOD. I am pretty sure that's new to Judaism - at least the priests of that time thought so. Nothing in scripture has been changed by anyone EVER - unless you'd like to prove that and then you'd be the first since they were written 2000 years ago.
Judaism uses our books. I can't explain something to someone arguing about how they know it already - your cup appears full.
Really? I mean you really actually believe that the Christians had the Old Testament first, wow.
Your Jesus has said things that have been said before even the words he's supposed to have said on the cross are from Psalm 22. I have it on good Christian authority that he actually said he wasn't there to destroy the Law or the Prophets and that he regularly quoted from what you like to think of as that Christian book, the Old Testament. By the way he's not the first to say this nor the last. the three day resurrection story was that long before Jesus was born. The Messiah is a Jewish concept so I guess I do know what it means, whatever you mean it isn't the messiah. The prophecy for the Messiah coming is that when he does the world ends and as its hasn't I'm guessing the messiah hasn't either. Believe what you wish but while our religion may not necessaryily be the 'correct' one or the only one, it is ours and I would think we tend to know about our history, beliefs etc than a non Jew who is mangling up bits of ourbooks to make his religion. Of course I know about it already, it's my bloody Book and I'm of the people of the Book as some quaintly put it!
http://jewishroots.net/library/messianic/false_messiahs.html
Believe what you will, makes no difference to me but I have to tell you that the Old Testament wasn't written by Christians and passed to the Jews.
Rubbish. If you pulled out the bible you use, there are posters here who can show you the exact translation errors in several ancient languages. Huge errors.
I wrote a paper in colege for a world religions class where I picked 17 different Bibles and compared five passages. None were eactly the same and many were hugely different in syntax, far more than 1%.
My conclusion was that there was no logical way to support a literal reading. The Bible is not a history book or any kind of accurate record of the past. The "Bible" is not "Authentic" in any way.
There are always going to be differences in translations, with the best will in the world to try for an true translation you aren't going to get one. Sometimes there just aren't exact word for word translations. We even have trouble just translating American English to Queen's English! My shift partner who is a Gurkha speaks several languages, Hindi, Nepalese, his own dialect plus some Fijian, Chinese and a couple of othe Nepalese dialects besides, it is not always possible for him to translate exactly, he often has to translate to convey the meaning rather than a word for word translation which can sound uncannily like Yoda talking!
