‘What is this? This is a Celtic Cross.’ in Latin:

Video 1: In this video, I ask: ‘What is this? This is a Celtic Cross.’ in Latin.

Figure 1: A wooden Celtic Cross that my father made.

In Latin:

‘Quid est hoc?’

Rhythmically:

‘Quíd ést hóc?’

In English:

‘What is this?’

In Latin:

‘Hoc est Crux Celtica.’

Rhythmically:

‘Hóc ést Crúx Céltica.’

In English:

‘This is a Celtic Cross.’

In Latin:

‘Quō est haec crux facta?’

Rhythmically:

‘Quóó ést há͡éá͡éc crúx fácta?’

In English:

‘What is this cross made with?’

‘With what is this cross made?’

In Latin:

‘Haec crux est lignō facta.’

Rhythmically:

‘Há͡éá͡éc crúx ést lígnoo fácta.’

In English:

‘This cross is made with wood.’

In Latin:

‘Quis fēcit hanc crucem?’

Rhythmically:

‘Q͡uís féécit hánc crúcem.’

In English:

‘Who made this cross?’

In Latin:

‘Pater meus hanc crucem fēcit.’

Rhythmically:

‘Páter méus hánc crúcem féécit.’

In English:

‘My father made this cross.’

In Latin:

‘Pater meus est hanc crucis factor.’

Rhythmically:

‘Páter méus ést hánc crúcis fáctor.’

In English:

‘My father is the maker of this cross.’

‘My father is this cross’s maker.’

---

---

Google Doc version:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XTIN4QHcKL-1EMkXCJ6Lp90YB3-JQrVeNCM1qIm15Ek/edit?usp=sharing

How to Say: ‘Mary is Our Lady’ in Hebrew:

Figure 1: A rough pencil sketch of The Annunciation that I drew, some time ago.

“גְּבִירָ֫ה„ or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrấh’, in Hebrew, means: ‘lady’.

To say ‘Our Lady’, we put “גְּבִירָ֫ה„ or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrấh’ into the construct state. This yields: “גְּבִירַת„, or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrát͡h’, which means: ‘the lady of’. To the previous construct form, we then suffix the first person plural suffix: “נוּ ֵ-„ or transliterated: ‘-ḗ͡ínûw’. This yields: “גְּבִרַתֵּ֫נוּ„ or, transliterated: ‘g͡ħəb͡hîyrat͡ħ-t͡ħḗ͡ínûw’, which means: ‘The Lady of us’; or: ‘The Lady of Ours’; or’ ‘Our Lady’.

“מִרְיָ֫ם„, or, transliterated: ‘mirəyā́m’, is a Hebrew proper noun that means: ‘Mary’.

In Biblical Hebrew we can say:

‘Mary is our Lady.’

by saying:

“.מִרְיָ֫ם הִיא גְּבִירַתֵּ֫נוּ„

or, transliterated:

‘mirəyā́m hîyʔ g͡ħəb͡hîyrat͡ħ-t͡ħḗ͡ínûw.’

In Modern Hebrew we can say:

‘Mary is our Lady.’

by saying:

“מִרְיָ֫ם הִיא הַגְּבִירָ֫ה הַשֶּׁלָּ֫נוּ„

or, transliterated:

‘mirəyā́m hîyʔ hag͡ħ-g͡ħəb͡hîyrấh has͡h-s͡hel-lā́nûw.’

or, transliterated:

‘mirəyā́m hîyʔ g͡ħəb͡hîyrat͡ħ-t͡ħḗ͡ínûw.’

Strawmanning Naturalistic Explanations of the Alleged Resurrection | Part 1:

In this video, I respond to The Babylon Bee’s video: If Jesus’ Resurrection were a Hoax.

Video 1: A Babylon Bee video which, in my view, strawmans naturalist explanations of the alleged Resurrection.

Below is Part 1 of my video response:

Video 2: This is my video-response to the Babylon Bee’s video, above.

In video 2, I examine the claims that the Apostles were “brutally murdered” for professing belief in the Resurrection. The latest scholarship—indeed the latest Christian scholarship—suggests that they were not. At best, there is some historical evidence that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were martyred.

In video 2, I ponder whether or not stealing the body was even necessary for a belief in the Resurrection to crop up, naturalistically, amongst the Early Church. The latest Scholarship suggests that there was no empty tomb. Even Bart Ehrman^[1] has abandoned belief in the ‘honorable burial’ of Jesus. I suggest that—in the unlikely event that it ever even existed!—Jesus’s tomb was so luxurious, that it would have been reused after His death. If we ever did find Jesus’s tomb, there would, in all likelihood, be a corpse interred there. It would then be impossible for us to determine whether or not this corpse would be Jesus’s or the later tomb-occupant’s.

In video 2, I also stress that History is about ascertaining what probably happened in the past, and not about ascertaining what absolutely happened in the past. History has no way of ascertaining what absolutely happened in the past.

As Bart Ehrman stresses, given that History proceeds via methodological naturalism, the silliest and most ad hoc Naturalist explanation for the Resurrection is still going to be much much much more likely than a supernaturalist explanation that entails a man rising from the dead.

Ehrman posulates, for example, that Jesus might have had a twin, and whenever Jesus died, then Jesus’s twin came back on the scene, and began to tell everybody that he was the risen Jesus. This explanation is silly and absurd, and yet, according to Ehrman, it is much more likely than the postulation that a man rose from the dead.

Bart Ehrman does not say that miracles do not happen. As an ontological naturalist, this is, indeed what he privately believes, but this is not something that he can assert as an historical fact. However, what Ehrman does say is that if miracles do happen, then the Historical Method has no means of detecting them.

The Historical Method can only detect natural occurrences proceeding from natural causes. If miracles occur in the past, then the Historical Method is incapable of detecting them. Even then, the Historical method can only detect some natural events proceeding from some natural causes. The Historical Method is far from error-free. Sometimes it fails to detect phenomena that actually occurred in the past. Sometimes the Historical Method detects an occurrence that never occurred in the past.

I think that some Christian Apologists, like Frank Turek, have a hard time understanding this.

If there be an 80% chance that an event occurred in the past, then there is also a 20% chance that this same event did not occur in the past. Sometimes phenomena occur in the past—or, indeed, fail to occur—in the past, against the odds.

---

^[1] The following quote is from Bart Ehrman Blog: ‘One of the most pressing historical questions surrounding the death of Jesus is whether Jesus really was given a decent burial, as the NT Gospels indicate in their story of Joseph of Arimathea. Even though the story that Joseph, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, received permission to bury Jesus is multiply attested in independent sources (see, e.g., Mark 15:43-47; John 19:38-42), scholars have long adduced reasons for suspecting that the account may have been invented by Christians who wanted to make sure that they could say with confidence that the tomb was empty on the third day. The logic is that if no one knew for sure where Jesus was buried, then no one could say that his tomb was empty; and if the tomb was not empty, then Jesus obviously was not physically raised from the dead. And so the story of the resurrection more or less required a story of a burial, in a known spot, by a known person. For some historians, that makes the story suspicious.

‘There are real grounds for the suspicion.’

Gnosis Falsely So Called:

mathsandcomedy.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/gnosis_falsely_so_called.pdf

Introduction:

I could listen to Dr. Robert McNair Price (1954-) all day. The MythVision YouTube channel, seems to be where this great sage hangs out, these days. I can listen to 30-minute talk after 30-minute talk of his for ages.

The poor man seems failed, though, and not long for this world. Saturn mows down all living things beneath his scythe to make way for a newer, fitter, generation, and, alas, Price will one day—like us all—be harvested by the Grim Reaper, Saturn. I hope and pray, though, that he might live for another decade or more.

At present I am reading his Jesus is Dead (2007), which is a critical examination of arguments made by Christian apologists in favour of the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ. What I love about this book, is that Price ridicules and mocks the apologists’ rogues gallery when such scorn be necessary. In this article, I shall examine what Price said concerning 1^st Timothy 6:20 in a recent MythVision video.

Body:

The Independent Fundamentalist Anabaptist, Matt Powell, recently came out with a YouTube “movie” promoting creationism entitled: Science Falsely So Called (2018).

This film derives its title from the King James Version: Blayney Edition (1769) rendering of 1^st Timothy 6:20:

‘O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:’

.

Let us examine 1^st Timothy 6:20 as it appears in the Clementine Vulgate:

‘Ō Tīmothee, dēpositum cū̆stōdī, dēvītāns profānās vōcum novitātēs, et oppositiōnēs falsī nōminis scientiae,’

‘ÓÓ Tiimóthee, deepósitum cuustóódii/custóódii, deevíítaans profáánaas vóócum novitáátees, ét oppositióónees fálsii nóóminis sciéntiææ,’

‘ÓÓ Tiimóthee, deepósitum custóódii, deevíítaans profáánaas vóócum novitáátees, ét oppositióónees fálsii nóóminis sciéntiææ,’

. My translation of the Clementine Vulgate is as follows:

‘O Timothy! Keep that which was placed down, avoiding the novelties of profane voices, and [the] oppositions of science falsely so named.’

Note how similar my translation of the Vulgate is to the KJV’s translation. In the KJV:

‘… the oppositions of science falsely so called.’

is basically a transliteration of the Vulgate’s:

‘…oppositiōnēs falsī nōminis scientiae.’

Thus, the KJV is not the literary bastion of anti-catholicism that the likes of the New-Independent-Fundamentalist-Anabaptist Pastor, Steven Anderson, would like you to think that it was. The Catholic Vulgate was a major influence on the KJV translators.

According to Price, the verse delineated suprā is a nod and a wink, by the author of 1st Timothy, to the Antitheses of Marcion of Pontus (circā 85 C.E.- circā 160 C.E.)

Marcionism, in a nutshell, was the rejection of the Old Testament, and its God, as evil.

Marcion wrote a book, in which he contrasted the Old-Testament God with the New-Testament God, and this—now lost—book was entitled: Antitheses.

Let us now examine 1^st Timothy 6:20 in the Koine Greek of Scrivener’s (1894) Textus Receptus:

Ὦ Τῑμόθεε, τὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον, ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως·

‘Ō̂ Tīmót͡hee, tē̂n parakatat͡hḗkēn phúlaxon, ektrepómenos tā̀s bebḗlous kenop͡hōníās kaì antit͡héseis tē̂s p͡seudōnúmou gnṓseōs.’

Let us examine the Greek verse, suprā, in Young’s Literal Translation (1862) of the Textus Receptus:

‘O Timotheus, the thing entrusted guard thou, avoiding the profane vain-words and opposition of the falsely-named knowledge,’

.

According to Dr. Bob, the Greek verse, suprā, is a warning by Saint Paul, against Marcion’s book: The Antitheses and against the gnosticism of the Marcionite sect. According to the author of 1st Timothy, the Marcionite sect has a false Gnosis, whereas the more orthodox Pauline sect, represented in the Book of 1st Timothy, has the true Gnosis; the true salvific knowledge.

Summary:

Doctor Robert McNair Price’s scholarly ouevre is fascinating. Price’s humorous demeanour, in both his speeches and his writings, rivets the hearer/reader to material that is at times difficult. We are discussing the turgid fields of Ancient History and Textual Criticism, after all. In Jesus is Dead (2007) Price argues that the Bible becomes much more interesting, and much more fun to study, once one jettisons the notion that this Bible constitutes an inerrant revelation from a God… and I strongly agree with him concerning this point.

Duolingo Lesson: Wednesday 22nd July: Hebrew Determiners:

zeh_determiner_demonstrative_colon_this-copy-1.docx

zeh_determiner_demonstrative_colon_this-copy.pdf

Introduction:

At present, that I may one day be able to read the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, or “Old Testament” in its original Hebrew, I am studying Modern Hebrew, for free, via the Duolingo App. I employ this gamified app so as to learn a form of Hebrew that is more similar to Classical/Biblical Hebrew than it is dissimilar. I can, therefore, through the employment of Brown, Driver Briggs and wiktionary, leverage this addictive, and free gamified app so as to learn some Classical/Biblical Hebrew. According to Hector Avalos in The End of Biblical Studies (2007), even though biblical studies is both a dying and oversubscribed [1] profession, nevertheless there is a shortage of talent and competency for the few lecturing positions available. At PhD level, Avalos recommends that those wishing to lecture, should know at least four languages among the following:

 Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, Aramaic and Syriac,

to some degree of fluency, and that, ideally, one would also be able to decipher some French, Coptic, and Akkadian, as well.

Therefore, wishing eventually to lecture Philosophy of Religion[2] at a PhD level, some day, I am actively trying to learn Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German and Aramaic and Syriac. Aramaic and Syriac are dialects of the same language. The gamified nature of Duolingo is enabling me to build up competency in a lot of the above-mentioned languages.

In this article, I examine some instances of Hebrew determiners.

Body:

 

Masculine Singular Form:

The Hebrew word, infrā:

 

זֶה

is a ‘determiner,’ which means:

‘this (masculine, singular)’

. The Hebrew word, suprā, when transliterated into the alphabet used by English speakers, appears thus:

‘zēh.’

The word, suprā, when its phonemes be transcribed phonetically into the International Phonetic Alphabet appears thus:

/zeː/

The word, suprā, whenspelled with Hebrew letters, appears thus:

‘zayin, segol; hey.’

In Biblical Hebrew, we employ the phrase:

הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה

or, when transliterated into the alphabet that English speakers use:

‘had͡ħd͡ħāb͡hā́r hazzḗh;’

‘had͡ħ-d͡ħāb͡hā́r haz-zḗh;’

to mean:

‘this thing.’

The phrase suprā—when its phonemes be transcribed, employing, in so doing, the International Phonetic Alphabet—appear thus:

/had.daː.ˈvaːr haz.ˈzeː/

The phrase, suprā, when spelled using Hebrew letters appears thus:

‘hey, pathach; daleth, dagesh forte, qamats; veith, qamats; reish. hey, pathach; zayin, segol; hey.’

Feminine Singular Form:

The Hebrew word, infrā:

זֺאת

is a determiner which means:

 ‘this (feminine, singular).’

The Hebrew word, suprā, when transliterated into the letters of the alphabet used by English speakers, appears thus:

‘zōʔt͡h.’

. The Hebrew word, suprā, when the phonemes, which comprise it, are transcribed into the International Phonetic alphabet, appears thus:

/zoˑʔθ/

/ˈzoˑʔ.θə/

. The word, suprā, when spelled using Hebrew letters, appears thus:

‘zayin, defective cholam; aleph; tau.’

.

Conclusion:

Having examined these Modern-Hebrew determiners—encountered by means of the Duolingo app—and thereupon examining the Classical-Hebrew equivalents of these two determiners, we can now confidently proceed in our studies of Modern Hebrew, employing Duolingo as an instrument in this endeavor.

---

[1] That is to say that there are many more post-graduates who wish to lecture biblical studies than there exist accredited universities, colleges, and seminaries with lecturing positions available.

[2] I prefer to call this field: “Philosophy of Religion” rather than to call it: “Theology.” Philosophy of Religion does not assume the existence of God, whereas Theology does. ‘Philosophy of Religion’ is a more neutral term for this field that both theists and atheists can accept.

The Elements of Euclid in Greek and Latin

I was trying to parse my way through an edition of The Elements in Greek and Latin:

https://archive.org/details/euclidisoperaomn01eucluoft/page/x

The name of The Elements in Ancient Greek is:

Στοιχει̃a

or, when transliterated:

Stoicheĩa

.

The Ancient-Greek word, τὰ στοιχει̃α or, when transliterated ‘tà stoicheĩa,’ is a plural form of the 2nd-declension neuter verb, τὸ στοιχει̃ον genitive: του̃ στοιχείου or, when transliterated: ‘tò stoicheĩon,’ genitive: ‘toũ stoicheíou.’

The Ancient-Greek word, ‘tò stoicheĩon,’ can mean ‘an element in a set.’

Figure 1: The elements of this set are alpha, beta, gamma and delta.

The Ancient-Greek word, ‘tò stoicheĩon,’ is formed from the Ancient-Greek masculine noun, ὁ στοι̃χος genitive: του̃ στοίχου or, when transliterated, ‘ho stoĩchos,’ genitive: ‘toũ stoíchou,’ which means ‘steps,’ or ‘a flight of stairs;’ and the Ancient-Greek 2nd-declension neuter nominal suffix, ‘-eĩon,’ genitive: ‘-eíou’ which denotes ‘a means (of),’ ‘an instrument of;’ etc.

Figure 2: a ‘stoĩchos’ or ‘series of steps.’

The term, ‘stoĩchos,’ according to Wiktionary, may be traced back to the indo-european word:

*steigʰ

, which means:

‘climb.’

Hence, etymologically, the Ancient-Greek term, ‘stoicheĩa,’ can be said to mean: ‘the means of climbing up;’ ‘the means of stepping up;’ ‘the means of ascent;’ etc.

This is highly instructive, as, in truth, Elements is a book that is a Jacob’s ladder, of sorts, by which one can ascend, element by element, into the heavens of mathematical knowledge.

Figure 3: With The Elements of Euclid, we advance in our mathematical knowledge element by element. Each element is, conceptually, like a rung, heaving us upwards to Mathematical prowess; to an implicit knowledge of Euclidean Geometry.

The Shiyn

 

Figure 1: This is the ‘Shiyn’, the 21st letter of the Hebrew abjad. Its Aramaic name is שִׁין or ‘shīyn’ or ‘shîn’. It is spelt ‘shiyn,chiriq; yod; final nun;’ I drew this shiyn with gel pens. I then scanned it into Vector Magic, and then I tweaked it in Inkscape with the Typography extension.

This is the 21st letter of the Hebrew abjad. An ‘abjad’ in linguistics is an alphabet comprising only consonants and no vowels. The word ‘shiyn,’ is Aramaic for ‘teeth.’ In Proto-Sinaitic, or “Paeleo-Hebrew” this character looks like a pair of incisors.

Figure 2: This is what a ‘shiyn’ looks like in Phoenician or Proto-Sinaitic or Pale-Hebrew.

שֵׁן or ‘shē(i)n’ is ‘tooth’ in Hebrew.

Figure 3: I drew this tooth in Assembly, an app-store app. שֵׁן or ‘shē(i)n’ is ‘tooth’ in Hebrew. It is spelt ‘shiyn,tseire; final nun;’ It is a feminine noun.

Should the dot be placed over the left horn, then this character is pronounced like a clean ‘s’ would in English. The IPA symbol that represents this sound is /s/.

Figure 4: Should we place the dot over the left horn, then we pronounce this character as a clean ‘s’ or /s/.

Should the dot be placed over the right horn, then this character is pronounced like an ‘sh’ would in English. The IPA symbol that represents this sound is /ʃ/.

Figure 4: Should we place the dot over the right horn, then we pronounce this character as a “soft-‘s’” sound; as we would pronounce the digraph ‘sh’ in ‘shop.’ The IPA symbol that represents this phoneme is /ʃ/ or ‘esh’.

One word with which this character is associated is the Hebrew word for fire, which is אֵשׁ or, when transliterated: ‘ē(i)sh.’

Figure 5: It is as though a fire bites into whatever it is consuming. Hence the shiyn, as a pictograph, is said to represent fire, or passion etc.

Figure 5: What the Hebrew word, ‘ē(i)sh’ means when spelled with Proto-sinaitic or Paleo-Hebrew characters. The pictographic meaning of this word seems to be ‘the strength of consuming,’ or ‘strong consuming,’ or ‘leading to consuming,’ etc.

The word for ‘man’ in Hebrew is אִישׁ or, when transliterated, ‘īysh,’ or ‘îsh.’ Man has, as it were, the fire of life inside of him, the götterfunken, or ‘divine spark,’ as Schiller put it. His internal body temperature is 37 degrees celsius. Also, man – if not careful – can be utterly consumed by his appetites and passions.

Figure 6: Ecce homō! Behold the man! It is as though he is animated by some divine flame. However, he is also a collection of passions and appetites, and – if not careful – he can be destroyed by these.

The Classics Make Engineering Easier: Latin names of Formal Logic Symbols.

 

Introduction:

It is my contention that the knowledge of Latin and Greek make STEM^[1] easier to learn. A huge number of STEM terms are derived from Greek and Latin.

 

 

Fig 1: I drew this portrait of George Boole with pencils. George Boole was self-taught and fluent in Latin, Greek and Hebrew by the time that he was 12.

Vel Symbol:

 

Fig 1: This is the Vel symbol. You may view the Vector at my CodePen Account.

In Formal Logic this symbol represents ‘disjunction.’ The equivalent in Boolean Algebra is ‘Inclusive Or.’ ‘vel’ is Latin for ‘or.’ One sees this quite a bit in liturgical rubrics^[2].

 

The Wedge Symbol

 

Fig 1: This is the Wedge symbol. You may view the Vector at my CodePen Account.

In Formal Logic this symbol represents “conjunction.” The equivalent in Boolean Algebra is “And.” In Latin, ‘ac’ or ‘atque’ is ‘and.’ Sometimes this symbol is called this. One sees this quite a bit in ecclesiastical Latin.

 

‘Annūntiō vōbīs gaudium magnum: habēmus pāpam! ēminentissimum ac reverendissimum dominum [praenōmen] sānctae rōmānae ecclēsiae [cōgnōmen] cardinālem quī imposuit sibi nōmen [nōmen pāpāle].’

‘I announce to ye a great joy: we have a Pope!, the most eminent and most revered [forename] lord of the most holy Roman Church, Cardinal [surname], who hath placed upon himself the name [regnal name].’

In the offertory the priest prays:

‘…prō fidēlibus christiānīs vīvīs atque dēfūnctīs…’

‘…for all faithful Christians living and dead…’

In The Young Pope (2016), a Cardinal, disfavoured by Pius XIII/Jude Law, prays this in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, to whence he was banished.

---

^[1]An acronym which stands for ‘Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics.’

^[2]The term, ‘rubrīcus,’ in Latin means ‘red.’ Liturgically, the actions of the priest are written in red, whereas what the priest says is written in black.

 

The Hebrew Word for Father:

---

In the below link, you may download a Microsoft Word version of this article:

the_hebrew_word_for_father

In the below link, you may download a pdf version of this article:

the_hebrew_word_for_father

---

Figure 1: I drew this Israeli flag in Inkscape and SVG.

In this chapter, we are going to examine the Hebrew word, אָב or ‘āv.’

Figure 2: I drew this Hebrew word ‘āv’ in Inkscape. Sometimes a custom font can really set a piece of graphic design off.

Body:

The Hebrew word for ‘father’ is:

אָב

Which is pronounced:

/ʔaːv/ , /ʔa:v/

, and which can be transliterated as:

‘āv’

.

In Phoenecian, or “Paleo-Hebrew” it is spelt:

Figure 3: The Phoenician, or Paleo-Hebrew word for ‘father.’ Pictographically, it is said to mean ‘the strength of the house;’ ‘the leader of the house.’

According to this intriguing website on Ancient Hebrew this word, pictographically, means ‘the strength of the house;’ ‘The leader (aluph)^[1] of the house (beith).’ The site master says that in Classical Hebrew thought, each person was said to be blessed with three fathers:

1. a biological father: ‘the strength of a household;’ ‘the leader of a household;’
2. a priest: the ‘leader of the house of God’
3. God:  ‘the leader of the Universe.’

In Biblical Hebrew, ‘the patriarchs;’ or ‘the fathers;’ or ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;’ are called the:

אָבוֹת

or:

‘āvōth’

.^[2]

We are introduced to father Abraham as:

אַבְרָם

or:

‘av(e)rām’^[3]

, which name means ‘exalted father.’^[4]

Conclusion:

In classical Hebrew, a little goes a long way. By our learning of the word, אָב or ‘āv,’ we have gained a more or less implicit understanding of Ancient-Hebrew and Phoenician culture, as regards how they view concepts such as God, patriarchy and fatherhood.

---

^[1]According to Wiktionary in Hebrew, the word, אַלּוּף, which is pronounced: /ʔal.ˈlʊf/ /ʔɑl.ˈlʊf/ means:

1. ‘A major general (military rank);’
2. ‘A champion (someone who has been winner in a contest);’
3. ‘Biblical Hebrew: A close friend.’

According to Wiktionary in Hebrew, the word, בַּיִת or ‘báyith‘ means:

1. ‘house;’
2. ‘stanza (part of a poem or a song).’

The Aramaic word בֵּית or ‘beith’ or ‘beyth’ is the second letter of the Aramaic Abjad that Hebrew uses. The Phoenician pictograph represents a ‘house,’ or a ‘tent.’ Figuratively, it can represent ‘body,’ which is the ‘house of the soul;’ ‘a temple,’ which is ‘the house of God,’ or even ‘the Universe.’

^[2] Pronounced רָם/ʔɔ:.’voːθ/ /ʔa:.voːθ/ /ʔɔ.’voːθ/ /ʔa.voːθ/

^[3] Pronounced /ʔɑv.ə.’ra:m/

^[4]According to Wiktionary The adjective רָם or ‘rām,’ pronounced /ra:m/, means:

1. ‘high,’ ‘important;’
2. ‘loud.’

 

It Won’t Always be Christmas:

Figure 1: I drew this Holly Sprig in SVG. You can see the code for this image at my Codepen account.

I saw the following quote on Wiktionary:

‘Nōn semper Sāturnālia erunt.’

What this essentially means is:

‘It will not always be Christmas.’

I remember as a young child feeling very sad when the last day of Christmas would come on January 6^th. The 6^th of January is ‘the Epiphany.’ The term, ‘epiphany,’ etymologically means ‘a shining out;’ ‘an enlightenment.’^[1] Hence, the three wise men, Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar were enlightened; it was discovered unto them – by a star in the east – that Jesus Christ:

‘…is born King of the Jews…’^[2]

The Pagans called their Christmas ‘Sāturnālia.’ Saturn was the god of Time, the god of Agriculture, the grim reaper who mows everybody down with his scythe, the god of crucifixion, who crucifies all men with age, sickness and geriatric infirmity, the god of decay… and winter is a time of death and decay. However, Saturn only causes death and decay such that new life can come in the spring time. It is said that when Saturn reigned as King of Rome with another god, Janus, that men lived to be about 1,000, there was an abundant harvest every year, and that death was painless.

The Christians called their winter festival “Nātīvitās Dominī” or “the Birth of [Our] Lord.” They were/are both winter festivals though.

---

^[1] The English word ‘epiphany’ comes from the Latin feminine 1^st-declension noun, ‘epiphanīa’ genitive: ‘epiphanīae.’ We can further derive the Latin noun, ‘epiphanīa,’ From the Ancient-Greek preposition ἐπί or ‘epí,’ which means a number of things depending upon the context, and the Ancient Greek verb, ‘φαίνειν’ or ‘phaínein,’ which means ‘to shine;’ and from the Ancient-Greek nominal suffix, -ια or’-ia.’ An ‘epiphany,’ therefore, is an ‘enlightenment,’ ‘a revalation shone into some one.’

^[2] KJV Matthew 2:2. Although not an atheist, I tend to concur with the late Christopher Hitchens that the infancy narratives are “true in none of their details” not least because Matthew and Luke contradict each other so wildly, and also because of the historical absurdities that they allege, such as Saint Joseph’s being ordered by the Romans to complete a census in Bethlehem, because that is where his ancestor, David, was from. The Romans did not care for such things. The Romans would not have cared in the slightest that Saint Joseph was descended from King David. Can you imagine the Empire-wide turmoil that would have resulted if every man had to go back to the city of his ancestors who lived a millenium prior! Charming tale, though.

^[3] Saturn’s astrological symbol is the cross united with the scythe. Saturn is also the god of satire, because satire can cause the death of bad ideas. Today, some call his Norse equivalent, Loki, “the god of trolling.”