New film
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Charlie - 23 Jan 2004 17:09 GMT There,s a new film coming out with Mel Gibson its about the crucifixion of Christ Iv just heard a Rabi and a Cristian disccusing it, neither of them seemed impressed with the content Rgds Charlie www.streetlevel.co.uk Sorry just checked the spelling
Jim Ward - 23 Jan 2004 18:06 GMT > There,s a new film coming out with Mel Gibson > its about the crucifixion of Christ > Iv just heard a Rabi and a Cristian disccusing > it, neither of them seemed impressed with the content Is it the one where it shows his marriage to Mary Magdalene? I bought a piece of the original marriage certificate (in Latin, of course).
John Varela - 23 Jan 2004 20:18 GMT > > There,s a new film coming out with Mel Gibson > > its about the crucifixion of Christ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is it the one where it shows his marriage to Mary Magdalene? I bought a > piece of the original marriage certificate (in Latin, of course). You were scammed. The original was in Aramaic.
 Signature John Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much.
R H Draney - 23 Jan 2004 20:53 GMT John Varela filted:
>> Is it the one where it shows his marriage to Mary Magdalene? I bought a >> piece of the original marriage certificate (in Latin, of course). > >You were scammed. The original was in Aramaic. So hard to make the right choice...civil authorities would have used Latin, the pharisaical bureacracy probably Aramaic (or proper Hebrew); we just have to figure out who would have issued such a document....
Or maybe it's like today in California...you can take your driver's test in English, Spanish, Korean, Hmong, and probably Klingon inter alia (I'm guessing Aramaic's no longer on the menu)....r
Evan Kirshenbaum - 23 Jan 2004 23:19 GMT > John Varela filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hebrew); we just have to figure out who would have issued such a > document.... Charles has accused me of relying too much on facts, so I'll just go with unsubstantiated recollection here. I'm fairly certain that marriage was one of those things that the Romans left up to local religious authorities. I'm equally certain that ketubot have been in Aramaic from at least that time, and it's only recently that you start seeing them in Hebrew or the local language. (Ours is in Aramaic.)
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
R H Draney - 24 Jan 2004 00:49 GMT Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>Charles has accused me of relying too much on facts, so I'll just go >with unsubstantiated recollection here. I'm fairly certain that >marriage was one of those things that the Romans left up to local >religious authorities. I'm equally certain that ketubot have been in >Aramaic from at least that time, and it's only recently that you start >seeing them in Hebrew or the local language. (Ours is in Aramaic.) I guess this is the new thing I was meant to learn today....
So, if "ketubot" is (or at least approximates) Hebrew for English "banns", I find myself wondering if it should be at all remarkable that both words are plural in form?...r
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 01:13 GMT > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "banns", I find myself wondering if it should be at all remarkable > that both words are plural in form?...r Only if you still find it remarkable when you consider that the word was used in the plural in my sentence. The singular is "ketubah". We have a ketubah hanging in our living room.
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Charles Riggs - 24 Jan 2004 08:04 GMT >> So, if "ketubot" is (or at least approximates) Hebrew for English >> "banns", I find myself wondering if it should be at all remarkable [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >was used in the plural in my sentence. The singular is "ketubah". We >have a ketubah hanging in our living room. So how much will the wife get? If the provisions to be made upon your demise or a divorce are openly displayed, I assume you won't consider it a personal question.
 Signature Charles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 08:18 GMT > >> So, if "ketubot" is (or at least approximates) Hebrew for English > >> "banns", I find myself wondering if it should be at all remarkable [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > demise or a divorce are openly displayed, I assume you won't consider > it a personal question. To tell you the truth, I honestly don't know. I don't read Aramaic. When we did this back in November, I found that
] the minimum amount was 200 zuz for a virgin and 100 zuz for a ] non-virgin. A zuz is a quarter of a shekel, so that would be, ] respectively, 50 shekels and 25 shekels. They give a value of 15 ] cents for a zuz, which would be $2.88 today according to the inflation ] calculator at ] ] http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi ] ] so that would be $576 for a virgin and $288 for a non-virgin. If ] you go by the weight of the silver, a zuz would appear to be about ] forty-five cents, and the prices would be $90 and $45.
I don't recall anybody asking about whether she was a virgin or not, so I'd guess that it's the larger amount. Of course those are minimums; I have no idea what was considered "standard".
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read
Reinhold (Rey) Aman - 24 Jan 2004 10:13 GMT [...]
> > > We have a ketubah hanging in our living room.
> > So how much will the wife get? If the provisions to be made upon > > your demise or a divorce are openly displayed, I assume you won't > > consider it a personal question.
> To tell you the truth, I honestly don't know. I don't read Aramaic. If you should get a divorce -- God forbid! -- the division of assets won't be based on the Aramaic _ketubah_ or Judaic law but on California law (where "divorce" is officially euphemized as something like "dissolution of marriage").
In case your wife should hire an outrageous scumbag divorce-shyster (euphemized by those bottom-feeding shysters as "matrimonial attorney" -- sorry, Bob) like my wife did, you'll be lucky to walk away with your scrotum intact, a suitcase with your clothes, some books, and a Commodore 64.
> When we did this back in November, I found that > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't recall anybody asking about whether she was a virgin or not, > so I'd guess that it's the larger amount. (Cough, cough) I believe that the virgin-bride's $576 (200 zuz) won't apply. On 5 January 2004 you posted:
"Not counting the unofficial roommate in my two-bed-triple freshman year and Susan (now my wife) who was my rommate off-campus my last year." [...] "We rented a house, sharing the master bedroom and subletting the other two bedrooms to other students."
Even if your shared master bedroom didn't have three mirrors (like Lieblich's debauched cave of carnality), there must have been some hot hanky-panky going on ("For 100 zuz I should worry?"). Not that there's anything wrong with flagrantly living in sin, of course.
 Signature Reinhold (Rey) Aman --------------------------------------- "Like most here, I rarely read Rey. ... I recommend that you avoid Rey's posts. They're not worth it." -- John Dean, 21 November 2003
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 16:18 GMT > > I don't recall anybody asking about whether she was a virgin or not, > > so I'd guess that it's the larger amount. > > (Cough, cough) I believe that the virgin-bride's $576 (200 zuz) won't > apply. I doubt that the wording is conditional, though. Once it was witnessed, whatever amount was stated there would be binding. Presumably I should have quibbled when it was being written. (Okay, it was actually a "fill-in-the-blank", but the only clue is that the filled-in elements are sometimes stretched to fill the blank.)
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?! | Bullwinkle J. Moose kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 19:43 GMT > > >We have a ketubah hanging in our living room. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > To tell you the truth, I honestly don't know. I don't read Aramaic. Looking at the ketubah, I can find the word "zuz" (in the plural "zuzey") in the middle of line nine, but nothing around it looks like an amount to me or to Susan, who reads Hebrew somewhat, but can't really do Aramaic. She tells me that the word before it, "kesef" is "money" in Hebrew. If anybody wants to take a look, I've put a photo of the ketubah at
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/AUE/ketubah.jpg
and a detail of the five lines centered on the word at
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/AUE/ketubah-detail-highlight.JPG
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |We never met anyone who believed in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |fortune cookies. That's astounding. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Belief in the precognitive powers |of an Asian pastry is really no kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |wackier than belief in ESP, (650)857-7572 |subluxation, or astrology, but you |just don't hear anyone preaching http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |Scientific Cookie-ism. | Penn and Teller
Jerry Friedman - 26 Jan 2004 23:31 GMT > > > >We have a ketubah hanging in our living room. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > really do Aramaic. She tells me that the word before it, "kesef" is > "money" in Hebrew. Literally "silver", in case she didn't throw that in.
> If anybody wants to take a look, I've put a photo > of the ketubah at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/AUE/ketubah-detail-highlight.JPG ...
I can't get most of it, but the word after "zuzey", whose consonants are m'tn, could be a cognate of Hebrew "me'oth" (if I spelled that right), which means "hundreds". Just to give you a ballpark.
 Signature Jerry Friedman
Jonathan Miller - 24 Jan 2004 03:43 GMT > > John Varela filted: > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Aramaic from at least that time, and it's only recently that you start > seeing them in Hebrew or the local language. (Ours is in Aramaic.) That's interesting. Also going with unsubstantiated recollection, in the Germanic (dare we say barbarian?) areas, marriages (except of the nobility) were begun by a man and frau simply beginning to live together and acting as husband and wife. At least up to the 1200s, although George Huppert in _After the Black Death_ (Oops! Well, at least I'm appealling to authority here and not actually authenticating facts) indicates that by the mid 1500s the formalities were pretty formal. However, one Spanish bishop complained that engaged people were living together as man and wife before the actual wedding ceremony. The formalities (and celebration) took place after the consummation.
Also (or maybe because), the pledge was taken very seriously and was practically permanent. Britney would be stuck.
Although (or again maybe because) you could get your marriage annulled if you were married within seven degrees of consanguinity. Given the way people travelled in those days, that meant practically all marriages (except of the nobility, of course -- but eventually they became pretty inbred too). Since annulment was so easy, divorce was unnecessary.
Jon Miller
Charles Riggs - 24 Jan 2004 08:04 GMT >Charles has accused me of relying too much on facts, so I'll just go >with unsubstantiated recollection here. I'm fairly certain that >marriage was one of those things that the Romans left up to local >religious authorities. I'm equally certain that ketubot have been in >Aramaic from at least that time, and it's only recently that you start >seeing them in Hebrew or the local language. (Ours is in Aramaic.) Good grief, Evan, what to do? Not being bedazzled by facts, I just don't know how to react to this statement. :-)
 Signature Charles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net
Adrian Bailey - 23 Jan 2004 19:20 GMT > There,s a new film coming out with Mel Gibson > its about the crucifixion of Christ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > www.streetlevel.co.uk > Sorry just checked the spelling Good job.
Adrian
Don Phillipson - 23 Jan 2004 21:14 GMT > There,s a new film coming out with Mel Gibson > its about the crucifixion of Christ > Iv just heard a Rabi and a Cristian disccusing > it, neither of them seemed impressed with the content Had either of them seen the film?
There was lots of publicity about this because Gibson (director or producer, not acting in this film) planned originally to use only St. John's Gospel in Latin and Aramaic as appropriate. Among the four biblical gospels, this is the most antisemitic (possibly first written in Greek for non-Jews.) It appears his film now uses a modern American translation of this gospel, with some PC synonyms. Apparently KGV "priests and scribes" becomes "Jewish authorities."
-- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Tony Cooper - 24 Jan 2004 02:48 GMT >> There,s a new film coming out with Mel Gibson >> its about the crucifixion of Christ [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >KGV "priests and scribes" becomes "Jewish >authorities." The movie was shown to a group of ministers and pastors here in town. The Jewish community is upset about the portrayal of Jews as the killer of Christ.
Personally, I can't see the problem. The only people who will watch the movie are people that have already formed their opinions.
The Grammer Genious - 24 Jan 2004 03:22 GMT > <...> The only people who will watch > the movie are people that have already formed their opinions. Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't give a crap about Gibson's humorous adolescent religious posturing, one way or the other.
\\P. Schultz
Jim Ward - 24 Jan 2004 04:01 GMT > Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for > linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't > give a crap about Gibson's humorous adolescent religious > posturing, one way or the other. I read that the Pope gave it a thumb up.
The Grammer Genious - 24 Jan 2004 04:21 GMT >>Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for >>linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't >>give a crap about Gibson's humorous adolescent religious >>posturing, one way or the other. > > I read that the Pope gave it a thumb up. Well, He may have stuck His thumb up, but He may have been signaling that he had to pee, or something.
\\P. Schultz
Evan Kirshenbaum - 24 Jan 2004 06:46 GMT > >> Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for > >> linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, He may have stuck His thumb up, but He may have been signaling > that he had to pee, or something. Anybody else flash on a Dave Allen routine? ("You! Take your barbecue and your friend hiding behind the bushes and get out of here!")
 Signature Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Lieblich - 24 Jan 2004 04:38 GMT > > Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for > > linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't > > give a crap about Gibson's humorous adolescent religious > > posturing, one way or the other. > > I read that the Pope gave it a thumb up. The Vatican vigorously denies that the Pope has any opinion about it. In his condition, it's probably quite an effort for him to give a thumbs up.
As for the movie, I doubt very much that it shows JC married to Mary M. None of the four canonic gospels mentions such a marriage, and Gibson says he followed the gospel narrative throughout.
I plan to see it, if only to see what the fuss is all about.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Why not?
Mickwick - 24 Jan 2004 10:42 GMT In alt.usage.english, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> I read that the Pope gave it a thumb up. > >The Vatican vigorously denies that the Pope has any opinion about >it. In his condition, it's probably quite an effort for him to give >a thumbs up. The Pope has recently made a remarkable recovery. He's been taking some sort of quack New Age herbal medicine - and it works! So I suppose it isn't quack or New Age any more.
Of course, if he had been a smoker he probably wouldn't have got Parkinson's in the first place.
 Signature Mickwick
Jim Ward - 26 Jan 2004 17:59 GMT > The Pope has recently made a remarkable recovery. He's been taking some > sort of quack New Age herbal medicine - and it works! So I suppose it > isn't quack or New Age any more. Speaking of New Agers, I recently read a paragraph about a Hawaiian sacred site being roped off to tourists because too many New Agers were hanging crystals and dreamcatchers.
John Dean - 24 Jan 2004 20:00 GMT >>> Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for >>> linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I plan to see it, if only to see what the fuss is all about. 'vigorously denies' isn't what comes across here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1130076,00.html
<< Dr Navarro-Valls's [ official papal spokesman ] first public statement on Thursday confirmed that the Pope had seen the film, and described it as "a cinematographic transposition of the historical event of the passion of Jesus Christ according to the accounts of the Gospel", which is more or less what the Pope is supposed to have said.
But he added: "It is a common practice of the Holy Father not to express public opinions on artistic works," leaving open the possibility that the Pope had acted unusually. He neither confirmed nor denied the papal remark.
Of course, by one version, the pope said ''It is as it was'' which, if *I'd* said it my wife would be breaking out the lithium. And we don't know in which language he said it or who translated it. -- John Dean Oxford
Jonathan Miller - 25 Jan 2004 09:33 GMT > >>> Nope. I don't have any formed opinions. I want to see it for > >>> linguistic reasons -- to see to what extent they f.ck up. I don't [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > said it my wife would be breaking out the lithium. And we don't know in > which language he said it or who translated it. The next time we are discussing some occurrence that we read (or hear) about in the news media, it would be wise to stop and think about this particular story. What appears in the "news" may or may not bear any resemblance to what really happened.
Jon Miller
Jim Ward - 26 Jan 2004 18:00 GMT > The Vatican vigorously denies that the Pope has any opinion about > it. In his condition, it's probably quite an effort for him to give > a thumbs up. I was wondering how you go about getting an Impuratur for a film.
Martin Ambuhl - 26 Jan 2004 18:22 GMT > I was wondering how you go about getting an Impuratur for a film. The reported phrase, "It is as it was," is closer to a nihil obstat.
 Signature Martin Ambuhl
Reinhold (Rey) Aman - 27 Jan 2004 05:38 GMT
> > The Vatican vigorously denies that the Pope has any opinion about > > it. In his condition, it's probably quite an effort for him to > > give a thumbs up.
> I was wondering how you go about getting an Impuratur for a film. You mean "imprimatur"? Nihil obstat.
 Signature Reinhold (Rey) Aman
R J Valentine - 27 Jan 2004 06:36 GMT } Jim Ward wrote: } }> Robert Lieblich wrote: } }> > The Vatican vigorously denies that the Pope has any opinion about }> > it. In his condition, it's probably quite an effort for him to }> > give a thumbs up. } }> I was wondering how you go about getting an Impuratur for a film. } } You mean "imprimatur"? Nihil obstat.
Yeah, but is that the answer or a correction of a putative error?
I think that back in the day you'd first get a censor librorum to check it over and give you a nihil obstat. Then you might have to hunt down someone to give you an imprimi potest. Only then would you seriously go about getting an imprimatur from the big dog. I don't see that the process would be any different for a film than for a book.
None of it means that it's right; it just means that it's not wrong enough to block.
For instance, for a Catholic nowadays (which is to say, since 1943) to say that a film taking a literal interpretation of a conflation of scriptural accounts of "events" leading up to the death of Jesus of Nazareth "is how it was" (or something to that effect) would be hard-pressed to get any of those stamps of approval for the statement. The sum total of what we know about them is pretty much stated in the ancient creeds: he died. It's one thing to take any one of the accounts as a way of dealing with it. It's another to paste it together like newspaper reporting.
Right, Rey?
 Signature R. J. Valentine <mailto:ianacl@wicked.smart.net>
Tony Cooper - 24 Jan 2004 04:57 GMT >> <...> The only people who will watch >> the movie are people that have already formed their opinions. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >\\P. Schultz What you've said above indicates that you've formed your opinion. Your opinion is that Gibson is guilty of humorous adolescent religious posturing. Therefore, the movie will not influence your view of the Jews. That's my point.
The Grammer Genious - 25 Jan 2004 02:51 GMT >>><...> The only people who will watch >>>the movie are people that have already formed their opinions. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > posturing. Therefore, the movie will not influence your view of the > Jews. That's my point. Oh, now I think I see. Since, as I stated, my having an opinion or NOT having an opinion has nothing whatever to do with the reason I will see the movie, what you must have meant is that everyone who goes to see the movie will just happen to have formed some opinion about something. Insightful.
\\P. Schultz
Charles Riggs - 24 Jan 2004 08:04 GMT >> <...> The only people who will watch >> the movie are people that have already formed their opinions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >give a crap about Gibson's humorous adolescent religious >posturing, one way or the other. Quite the reverse appears to be the case. It'd be the rare geezer who got all wound up over something he didn't give a crap about.
 Signature Charles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net
The Grammer Genious - 25 Jan 2004 02:53 GMT >>><...> The only people who will watch >>>the movie are people that have already formed their opinions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Quite the reverse appears to be the case. It'd be the rare geezer who > got all wound up over something he didn't give a crap about. Sorry it got you all wound up. Unless you enjoyed it, in which case I'm glad for you.
\\P. Schultz
|
|
|