Why did he do that?[/QUOTE]No Robots;670793 wrote: Leopold Wertheimer changed his name to Constantin Brunner.
Better anagrams available perhaps.
Compare 'inborn runts can net' to 'mothered or will pee' for example.
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived Seculare Cafe forum. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
Why does the existence or non-existence of god matter?
-
ruby sparks
- Posts: 7781
- Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
- Location: Northern Ireland
[quote=""No Robots""]
??
NR, given some of your statements concerning Judaism, what's your opinion of that?
Not that your disapproval (if such is the case) of Brunner's sociopolitical ideas should much affect your opinions of his theological ones, but it does seem somewhat inconsistent.
He never gave a reason, but he did recommend that German Jews in general change their names in order to better integrate into German society.[/QUOTE]Grendel;670837 wrote:Why did he do that?No Robots;670793 wrote: Leopold Wertheimer changed his name to Constantin Brunner.
??
NR, given some of your statements concerning Judaism, what's your opinion of that?
Not that your disapproval (if such is the case) of Brunner's sociopolitical ideas should much affect your opinions of his theological ones, but it does seem somewhat inconsistent.
[quote=""lpetrich""]
In such a case, we'd be extremely skeptical about a historical Abraham Lincoln. I don't see how this is some big reductio ad absurdum.
He would be something like Arthur Pendragon, usually known as King Arthur (
Historicity of King Arthur). He supposedly conquered much of the British Isles and some of the nearby continent around 500 CE. He is not mentioned in Bede's history (731 CE) or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (around 890), and the first mention of him is in the History of the Britons (around 820). In it, he is mentioned as a war leader (dux bellorum) who won 12 battles, but that's about it. There are some similar scattered references here and there, but the first detailed one is Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (1136). The King Arthur story started to take on its familiar form, and later chroniclers fleshed it out even further.
The historical King Arthur has been much argued about, and some people have proposed that he is entirely mythical, but it's generally agreed that the post-Geoffey accounts of that monarch have little or nothing of value about him.[/QUOTE]
It's possible that some or all of the Mabinogion predates Geoffrey of Monmouth.
[quote=""Politesse""]Politesse;669870 wrote:So the difference is, what? Your degree of personal incredulity about the story? Lincoln could very well be a mutant cyborg with superpowers by the time his myth cycle reaches its conclusion. Will the circumstances of his real life cease to exist once people's memories of him become silly enough for an atheist of the future to scoff at?JamesBannon;669865 wrote:I agree with Koy here. There is a world of difference between a genuine historical figure about whom some legends are told, and a magical person of, at best, doubtful historicity.
Suppose at some point the "historical" records you think of as definitive have disappeared, and "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter" didn't? Stranger things have happened, as any historiographer could tell you. Ask George Armstrong Custer; a man's myth can overtake his reality before he even hits the ground, if it is compelling enough.[/QUOTE]JamesBannon;669871 wrote: I rather doubt Lincoln would be subject to that much revision. Even if he were, the history is a matter of carefully researched record. On the other hand, there is no real evidence Jesus actually existed, and certainly none as he is commonly depicted.
In such a case, we'd be extremely skeptical about a historical Abraham Lincoln. I don't see how this is some big reductio ad absurdum.
He would be something like Arthur Pendragon, usually known as King Arthur (
Historicity of King Arthur). He supposedly conquered much of the British Isles and some of the nearby continent around 500 CE. He is not mentioned in Bede's history (731 CE) or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (around 890), and the first mention of him is in the History of the Britons (around 820). In it, he is mentioned as a war leader (dux bellorum) who won 12 battles, but that's about it. There are some similar scattered references here and there, but the first detailed one is Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (1136). The King Arthur story started to take on its familiar form, and later chroniclers fleshed it out even further.The historical King Arthur has been much argued about, and some people have proposed that he is entirely mythical, but it's generally agreed that the post-Geoffey accounts of that monarch have little or nothing of value about him.[/QUOTE]
It's possible that some or all of the Mabinogion predates Geoffrey of Monmouth.
[quote=""Jobar""] NR, given some of your statements concerning Judaism, what's your opinion of that?
Not that your disapproval (if such is the case) of Brunner's sociopolitical ideas should much affect your opinions of his theological ones, but it does seem somewhat inconsistent.[/quote]
Constantin Brunner had a very complex relationship with Judaism and his fellow Jews, especially in the context of growing anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany. He has been called the most German of Jews and the most Jewish of Germans. I find it all endlessly fascinating. My own view is that he provides precisely the programme of de-racialization that JamesBannon is talking about. We can emancipate ourselves from the constraints of our merely biological circumstances of birth and thereby join a community based on spiritual/intellectual affinity. We can affirm the reality of race, but at the same time affirm the possibility of emancipation from the constraints of externally imposed race concepts.
Not that your disapproval (if such is the case) of Brunner's sociopolitical ideas should much affect your opinions of his theological ones, but it does seem somewhat inconsistent.[/quote]
Constantin Brunner had a very complex relationship with Judaism and his fellow Jews, especially in the context of growing anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany. He has been called the most German of Jews and the most Jewish of Germans. I find it all endlessly fascinating. My own view is that he provides precisely the programme of de-racialization that JamesBannon is talking about. We can emancipate ourselves from the constraints of our merely biological circumstances of birth and thereby join a community based on spiritual/intellectual affinity. We can affirm the reality of race, but at the same time affirm the possibility of emancipation from the constraints of externally imposed race concepts.
[quote=""DMB""]
What's in the Mabinogion?
It's possible that some or all of the Mabinogion predates Geoffrey of Monmouth.[/QUOTE]lpetrich;670577 wrote: The historical King Arthur has been much argued about, and some people have proposed that he is entirely mythical, but it's generally agreed that the post-Geoffey accounts of that monarch have little or nothing of value about him.
What's in the Mabinogion?
[quote=""No Robots""]
To hide their Jewishness?
But it seems to me that his original name is very Teutonic -- like the names of many other northern European Jews.
He never gave a reason, but he did recommend that German Jews in general change their names in order to better integrate into German society.[/QUOTE]Grendel;670837 wrote:Why did he do that?No Robots;670793 wrote: Leopold Wertheimer changed his name to Constantin Brunner.
To hide their Jewishness?
But it seems to me that his original name is very Teutonic -- like the names of many other northern European Jews.
[quote=""lpetrich""]But it seems to me that his original name is very Teutonic -- like the names of many other northern European Jews.[/quote]
I don't really know if "Wertheimer" would sound Jewish to Germans. Like I said, he never really gave a reason for his own decision to change his name, or why he chose that particular name. All he ever said that I can find comes in the journal of his stepdaughter. She guesses that "Constantin" was chosen for its meaning of "steadfast," which he acknowledges. She guesses that "Brunner" was chosen to honour his patron, whose husband was a founder of the Brunner chemical conglomerate. CB says that it wasn't to honour her, but to tease her a little and to amuse himself thereby. He says that he had mixed motives, as always; that simple motives never determine him, and that one mustn't delve into his actions.
I don't think it was a question of hiding his Jewishness, but of emancipating himself from it. It's a complex question. What I like about Brunner is that even this small aspect of his life is full of food for thought.
I don't really know if "Wertheimer" would sound Jewish to Germans. Like I said, he never really gave a reason for his own decision to change his name, or why he chose that particular name. All he ever said that I can find comes in the journal of his stepdaughter. She guesses that "Constantin" was chosen for its meaning of "steadfast," which he acknowledges. She guesses that "Brunner" was chosen to honour his patron, whose husband was a founder of the Brunner chemical conglomerate. CB says that it wasn't to honour her, but to tease her a little and to amuse himself thereby. He says that he had mixed motives, as always; that simple motives never determine him, and that one mustn't delve into his actions.
I don't think it was a question of hiding his Jewishness, but of emancipating himself from it. It's a complex question. What I like about Brunner is that even this small aspect of his life is full of food for thought.
[quote=""No Robots""]I don't really know if "Wertheimer" would sound Jewish to Germans.[/quote]Wertheimer is a western Ashkenazi Jewish surname. One of the oldest known Jewish communities in Germany stems from Wertheim. In 19th century Germany Wertheimer would have been recognised as a Jewish name as readily as, say, Goldberg.
[quote=""No Robots""]
I can think of only one valid reason for changing your name (all else being equal) Because you're unsure of yourself. Changing your name doesn't fix that.
He never gave a reason[/QUOTE]Grendel;670837 wrote:Why did he do that?No Robots;670793 wrote: Leopold Wertheimer changed his name to Constantin Brunner.
I can think of only one valid reason for changing your name (all else being equal) Because you're unsure of yourself. Changing your name doesn't fix that.
I've been trying to recall where else I have seen the name 'Brunner' in reference to theology. I think it may have been in Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? I ought to check out the index of that book and see. But I have definitely seen it in print media, not online; and that may be Emil the Protestant theologian.
[quote=""Jobar""]I've been trying to recall where else I have seen the name 'Brunner' in reference to theology. I think it may have been in Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? I ought to check out the index of that book and see. But I have definitely seen it in print media, not online; and that may be Emil the Protestant theologian.[/quote]
I'm sure Ehrman doesn't talk about Constantin Brunner. I sent him a copy of Brunner's Our Christ, and got nothing but silence when I followed up. The same thing happened with Marcus Borg and Harold Bloom. Brunner is just too hot to handle for our academics.
I'm sure Ehrman doesn't talk about Constantin Brunner. I sent him a copy of Brunner's Our Christ, and got nothing but silence when I followed up. The same thing happened with Marcus Borg and Harold Bloom. Brunner is just too hot to handle for our academics.
[quote=""Grendel""]
I can think of only one valid reason for changing your name (all else being equal) Because you're unsure of yourself. Changing your name doesn't fix that.[/quote]
And yet you go by the name of an infamous monster. :d unno:
[quote=""Grendel""]
How many assumptions are necessary to get from 'well' to 'steadfast delver'?[/quote]
Constant well. One assumption.
I can think of only one valid reason for changing your name (all else being equal) Because you're unsure of yourself. Changing your name doesn't fix that.[/quote]
And yet you go by the name of an infamous monster. :d unno:
[quote=""Grendel""]
How many assumptions are necessary to get from 'well' to 'steadfast delver'?[/quote]
Constant well. One assumption.
[quote=""Hermit""]Wertheimer is a western Ashkenazi Jewish surname. One of the oldest known Jewish communities in Germany stems from Wertheim. In 19th century Germany Wertheimer would have been recognised as a Jewish name as readily as, say, Goldberg.[/quote]
Thanks for that info. Constantin Brunner's grandfather was Akiba Wertheimer, the first Chief Rabbi of Altona and Schleswig-Holstein.
Thanks for that info. Constantin Brunner's grandfather was Akiba Wertheimer, the first Chief Rabbi of Altona and Schleswig-Holstein.
Of course, Constantin Brunner grew up with a lot of anxiety about the place of Jews in German society, so that may indeed have been a big part of his name change. There was also, though, as I said, a desire to break free of his family's religious background, and to establish himself in literary circles. He used the name Constantin Brunner originally as a pen name; but, as I understand it, changed his name formally upon undergoing a spiritual transformation. This transformation triggered a number of other changes: he married his cousin's divorced wife, and withdrew from social activity to begin what would become his main literary production.
[quote=""lpetrich""]
Mabinogion
What's in the Mabinogion?[/QUOTE]DMB;670847 wrote:It's possible that some or all of the Mabinogion predates Geoffrey of Monmouth.lpetrich;670577 wrote: The historical King Arthur has been much argued about, and some people have proposed that he is entirely mythical, but it's generally agreed that the post-Geoffey accounts of that monarch have little or nothing of value about him.
MabinogionIt's over 40 years since I read a translation of the Mabionogon and even longer since I read various other Arthurian stuff, so I'm a bit fuzzy now on the details.The Mabinogion ... are the earliest prose stories of the literature of Britain. The stories were compiled in Middle Welsh in the 12th–13th centuries from earlier oral traditions. The two main source manuscripts were created c. 1350–1410, as well as a few earlier fragments. These stories offer drama, philosophy, romance, tragedy, fantasy and humour, and were created by various narrators over time. The title covers a collection of eleven prose stories of widely different types. There is a classic hero quest, "Culhwch and Olwen"; historic legend in "Lludd and Llefelys" glimpses a far off age, and other tales portray a very different King Arthur than the later popular versions do. The highly sophisticated complexity of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi defy categorisation. The list is so diverse a leading scholar has challenged them as a true collection at all...
... There are certainly traces of mythology, and folklore components, but since the 1970s an understanding of the integrity of the tales has developed, with investigation of their plot structures, characterisation, and language styles. They are now seen as a sophisticated narrative tradition, both oral and written, with ancestral construction from oral storytelling, and overlay from Anglo-French influences...
...The question of the dates of the tales in the Mabinogion is important, because if they can be shown to have been written before Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae and the romances of Chrétien de Troyes, then some of the tales, especially those dealing with Arthur, would provide important evidence for the development of Arthurian legend. Regardless, their importance as records of early myth, legend, folklore, culture, and language of Wales is immense.
The stories of the Mabinogion appear in either or both of two medieval Welsh manuscripts, the White Book of Rhydderch or Llyfr Gwyn Rhydderch, written circa 1350, and the Red Book of Hergest or Llyfr Goch Hergest, written about 1382–1410, though texts or fragments of some of the tales have been preserved in earlier 13th century and later manuscripts. Scholars agree that the tales are older than the existing manuscripts, but disagree over just how much older. It is clear that the different texts included in the Mabinogion originated at different times. Debate has focused on the dating of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi. Sir Ifor Williams offered a date prior to 1100, based on linguistic and historical arguments, while later Saunders Lewis set forth a number of arguments for a date between 1170 and 1190; Thomas Charles-Edwards, in a paper published in 1970, discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both viewpoints, and while critical of the arguments of both scholars, noted that the language of the stories best fits the 11th century, although much more work is needed. More recently, Patrick Sims-Williams argued for a plausible range of about 1060 to 1200, which seems to be the current scholarly consensus.
[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
Did everyone riding on a donkey to popular acclaim fulfill prophecy?[/QUOTE]
Dear Koyaanisqatsi,
Although I am impressed with your observation about how many times this type of language was used, it's far from a smoking gun. So what if the language does not measure up to your expectations of what it might be? it can still be true. Plus you need to think, that given that Jesus's actions (riding the donkey etc) were alluding to prophecies written hundreds of years before (and not necessarily common knowledge), it's not necessarily bad writing for the author to mention that. He was trying to prove a point after all, and I for one do not think he was over doing it.
Regarding it's no great feat to fulfill a whole bunch of hundred and even thousand year old prophecies, uhh, ya, it is mind blowingly amazing that the prophecies were even made, and then that one guy would fulfill them all and even to the point to of crucifixion. All for fun you say. If it's so easy, then why isn't everyone doing it? There's only one my dear. Wake up.
Did everyone riding on a donkey become the Messiah? No dear. But we know who did and what it means.
So Koyaanisqatsi, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. I suggest you surrender yourself to Jesus if you haven't already. But seriously, don't be a fool.
1I
Particularly when the second book uses the phrase, "this took place to fulfill what was spoken" numerous times:MattShizzle;665000 wrote:It's not difficult at all to write a book that "fulfills" prophecies written in an earlier book...1ICrying;664701 wrote:Thank you all for engaging with me in this discussion so far. Here are In just predicting the coming of the Messiah, there are over some 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament by Jesus Christ. These are prophecies that were written in there by the Jews, between 1500 and 300 BC, at minimum, a full 3 centuries before our carpenter arrives. When you read those prophecies in the Old Testament and match them up with their fulfillment, it sends shivers along the spine. How many other books contain the proof of fulfilled prophecy?
Matthew 1:18-22 - Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet he did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet
Matthew 2: Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King
2:1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.”
4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet
It's no great trick to take a book full of things that are "prophesied" to happen at some point in the future and then in the future do those things "to fulfill what was spoken." Assuming of course any of this narrative is any way factual and not just made up by religious zealots.John 18:8-9
8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
Did everyone riding on a donkey to popular acclaim fulfill prophecy?[/QUOTE]
Dear Koyaanisqatsi,
Although I am impressed with your observation about how many times this type of language was used, it's far from a smoking gun. So what if the language does not measure up to your expectations of what it might be? it can still be true. Plus you need to think, that given that Jesus's actions (riding the donkey etc) were alluding to prophecies written hundreds of years before (and not necessarily common knowledge), it's not necessarily bad writing for the author to mention that. He was trying to prove a point after all, and I for one do not think he was over doing it.
Regarding it's no great feat to fulfill a whole bunch of hundred and even thousand year old prophecies, uhh, ya, it is mind blowingly amazing that the prophecies were even made, and then that one guy would fulfill them all and even to the point to of crucifixion. All for fun you say. If it's so easy, then why isn't everyone doing it? There's only one my dear. Wake up.
Did everyone riding on a donkey become the Messiah? No dear. But we know who did and what it means.
So Koyaanisqatsi, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. I suggest you surrender yourself to Jesus if you haven't already. But seriously, don't be a fool.
1I
-
ruby sparks
- Posts: 7781
- Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
- Location: Northern Ireland
[quote=""1ICrying""] Here are In just predicting the coming of the Messiah, there are over some 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in the New Testament by Jesus Christ. These are prophecies that were written in there by the Jews, between 1500 and 300 BC, at minimum, a full 3 centuries before our carpenter arrives. When you read those prophecies in the Old Testament and match them up with their fulfillment, it sends shivers along the spine. How many other books contain the proof of fulfilled prophecy?[/quote]
It's certainly a bit spooky that 300 prophecies were made 300 years before.The numbers are too much of a coincidence.
It's certainly a bit spooky that 300 prophecies were made 300 years before.The numbers are too much of a coincidence.
[quote=""No Robots""]I'm sure Ehrman doesn't talk about Constantin Brunner. I sent him a copy of Brunner's Our Christ, and got nothing but silence when I followed up. The same thing happened with Marcus Borg and Harold Bloom. Brunner is just too hot to handle for our academics.[/quote]
There is another possible reason. That his work is not a very good contribution to what they work on. Which is trying to determine what the historical Jesus Christ had been like.
There is another possible reason. That his work is not a very good contribution to what they work on. Which is trying to determine what the historical Jesus Christ had been like.