|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barrow-Wight
Rohan
Apr 11 2014, 3:09am
Post #1 of 22
(773 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Elbereth based on the Virgin Mary?
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before but I was thinking about this the other other day Do you think that Tolkien loosely based Elbereth on The Virgin Mary? I thought about how the elves have their songs to Elbereth I was reminded of "Ave Maria" which is the "Hail Mary" in Catholicism and that quenya is kinda like the elves version of Latin. Tolkien was Catholic wasn't he? I know he hated allegory and symbolism like that but do you think there could be a connection?
|
|
|
Barrow-Wight
Rohan
Apr 12 2014, 12:06am
Post #3 of 22
(631 views)
Shortcut
|
lol I should have said is The elves reverence of Elbereth based on the Catholics reverence of the Virgin Mary
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Apr 12 2014, 3:31am
Post #5 of 22
(622 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien was a very devout Catholic after his mother converted when he was still a child. He also modeled Galadriel after her. I did a thread on this recently if you search under my posts.
|
|
|
Brethil
Half-elven
Apr 12 2014, 11:31pm
Post #7 of 22
(603 views)
Shortcut
|
|
JRRT addresses Sam's invocation to Elbereth
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in Letter #211, and it may shed some light (pun, very. Sorry) on what he thought of Elbereth. In the letter, he discourses on specific translation inaccuracies (as they could be said to be) based on Sam's 'inspired' speech and call to Elbereth. He then goes on to say:
'He was 'inspired' to make this invocation in a language he did not know (II 338)...It means, more or less: 'O Elbereth Starkindler (in the past tense: the title belongs to mythical pre-history and does not refer to a permanent function) from heaven gazing-afar, to thee I cry now in the shadow of (the fear of) death. O look towards me, Everwhite! Everwhite is an inadequate translation: it is equally the snow-white of I, 88. The element ui (Primitive Elvish oio) means ever; both fan- and los(s) convey white, but fan connotes the whiteness of clouds (in the sun); loss refers to snow.
'Amon Uilos, in High-elven Oiolosse (see the lament of Galadriel I 394, oiolosse = from Mt. Uilos) was one of the names of the highest peak of the Mountains of Valinor, upon which Manwe and Varda dwelt. So that an Elf using or hearing the name Fanuilos, would not think of (or picture) only a majestic figure robed in white, standing in a high place gazing eastward towards mortal lands, he would at the same time picture an immense peak, snow-capped, crowned with a piercing or dazzling white cloud.'
Interesting that in this moment we have a potentially intercessive Varda gazing towards Middle-earth from a peak 'crowned' in white and covered in pure white snow. Various elements I think there imply a view of Mary: the invocation when Sam was 'in the fear of the shadow of death' which to my mind recalls Psalm 23:4 (Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil...) which JRRT would certainly have been familiar with.
And the whiteness, and pureness of the snow-capped peak also seems evocative to me, from a perspective of comparing Varda to Mary. The inseparability, linguistically, of the two images is intriguing too: one does not just get the figure without the picture of the glowing, dazzling purity of the whiteness of the mountain.
The virginal element - perhaps less so. He never says definitely either way, but as the Valar were paired and seemed to enjoy the physical 'raiment' of the Firstborn, likely I think they had physical relationships as well. So here maybe a step away from a direct allegory of Mary before the birth?
The Third TORn Amateur Symposium kicks off this Sunday, April 13th, in the Reading Room. Come and join us for Tolkien-inspired writings!
**And Rem, you are doing that CoH chapter. Don't forget. **
(This post was edited by Brethil on Apr 12 2014, 11:32pm)
|
|
|
Werde Spinner
Rohan
Apr 14 2014, 11:40pm
Post #8 of 22
(572 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know if anyone quoted this in the preceding discussion (which I missed out on, and sadly don't have the time to read now), but I believe there's this quote from the good Professor's letters: "All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady."
As a Catholic myself, I am very familiar with the devotion to the Virgin Mary. I have always found the Elves' devotion to Varda and their songs to her reminiscent of Catholic tribute to Mary, but I don't think it's an allegory or anything like that. You can have symbolism - beautiful, powerful symbolism - without allegory. Symbolism can be unconsciously done, too. Some things can become just so deeply ingrained in your mind and heart that they naturally find an outlet in whatever you work on - be it writing, music, art, whatever.
So, no, I don't think Tolkien set out deliberately to set Varda up as a Middle-earth version of the Blessed Virgin. That doesn't sound like the sort of thing he would do. But it is similar, and I want to say (I haven't read his Letters in a while... shame on me) that he did realize this and acknowledge the parallel. It just sounds to me as if his devotion ot the Blessed Virgin was important to him and so that sort of theme found its way into his writings, without his really trying to put it there.
"I had forgotten that. It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"
"As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Apr 24 2014, 2:52pm
Post #9 of 22
(536 views)
Shortcut
|
I can't see any similarity between Galadriel and Mary of Israel. There is no physical connection been Galadriel is a Nordic Blue eyed Blonde hair woman, and Mary been a Jewish woman from the Galilee. Second there is no connection in the theology between these two characters, given Galadriel was never born of any 'virgin births', and that's without even bringing the great debate between the Christians themselves about the validity of the so called 'virgin birth'. Many Christians reject the idea that Mary was a virgin, not excluding the founder of Christianity, Paul who never claimed Jesus to be born of a virgin birth. The whole story of virgin births begun about 70 years after the death of Jesus, and it was written by people who came after Jesus and who have never met Jesus in their lives. James for example, the brother of Jesus had never ever believed such a thing a virgin birth. This whole thing of 'virgin births' was used as a 'sales peach' for early Christian missionaries who tried to convert the pagans of the world especially in Rome and other parts of Europe and far Asia where the idea of virgin births was a popular pagan practice and belief. If anything it was the Christians who were influenced from the pagans about 'virgin births' and not the other way around.
I'm no preacher or a politician…
(This post was edited by SaulComposer on Apr 24 2014, 2:56pm)
|
|
|
Werde Spinner
Rohan
Apr 28 2014, 2:35pm
Post #10 of 22
(504 views)
Shortcut
|
I never intended to draw any parallels between the physical appearances of Galadriel and Mary. As far as I'm concerned, that's all a moot point. I was just talking about it from a theological/philsophical standpoint.
I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your second paragraph. You seem to have confused the Virgin Birth of Christ with the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother. Catholics believe that the Virgin Birth means Jesus had no earthly father. The Immaculate Conception is held to mean that Mary was conceived without original sin, in order to be a fitting mother for the Christ.
I'm not trying to argue this issue at all. I really don't wish to start a flame war on TORn. I just thought I should explain the issue from the Catholic perspective a bit more clearly.
I also certainly never meant to imply that there was any sort of virgin birth or immaculate conception going on with Galadriel, either. I merely meant that, as a powerful feminine intercessor/agent of grace, she seems to function in Middle-earth like a symbol of Mary and that possibly the good Professor, being a devout Catholic, may have had that idea as well. That's all.
"I had forgotten that. It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"
"As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Apr 29 2014, 4:25am
Post #11 of 22
(518 views)
Shortcut
|
I understand what Catholics believe, they have a right to believe whatever they want, as other people all throughout the world should have freedom of religion which is an extremely important right.
But there is little difference between the concept of 'Immaculate Conception' and a 'Virgin Birth' when it comes to Mary or Jesus, for as I have mentioned before, there were two Camps within the Jewish Sect called 'Christians' for all intends and purposes the entire story and narrative began with Jews, in Israel with Jewish characters and Jewish concepts.
This ancient Jewish Sect was composed of two primary leading camps. Those who actually lived with Jesus and saw him, their leader was James, who was Jesus' brother. The other camp was headed by Paul who was first called Saul and then changed his name to Paul. The camp of Paul with Paul included, had never ever seen Jesus in real life. Paul claimed to had seen Jesus in a dream, or some kind of a 'vision' but he had never seen him physically. When he came from Syria to Israel he was met by James' camp who really didn't like Paul.
They claimed that they were the true representatives of Jesus' message since they physically lived with him and studied from him directly, while this 'Jonny come lately' thinks that he can take the leadership from them. So they tested Paul to see if he was faithful to the Law of Moses, (The Torah) cause they have heard from Jesus directly that the Law can never be abolished and that its eternal. One of the tests was for Paul to prepare sacrifices to be offered on the Temple.
So the animus here is vital. It never dawned on James and his followers to view Jesus anything more then a regular human being. There was absolutely no mention of anything about Virgin Births or subsequently 'Immaculate conception'. Now if you read all of Paul's writings in the New Testament you won't find even one single reference to anything that has to do with virgin births. Given the centrality and impressiveness of the theological value of the virgin birth one would assume that the founder of Christianity will mention it in his writings at least once?
Furthermore, James camp was extremely dissatisfied with the paganization of the New found Jewish Sect by Paul. You must remember that Paul landed a huge failure in converting the Jews to this new creed. Jews simply refused to believe in the Messianship of Jesus cause they knew the context and the reason why he begun this new movement. Given the total rejection of the Jews for this new creed, Paul had decided to 'internationalize' the movement by not insisting on vital Jewish laws such as circumcision. Say what you may but gaining converts when the first thing they have to do is to perform a painful operation would have been exceedingly off-putting and a huge turnoff.
So because of these rumors circulating that Paul is not so strict with Keeping Jewish law and trying to get converts without circumcision had created a great worry in the mind of James who was a direct biological link to Jesus and his primary student. therefore he initiated a number of tests to see whether Paul is attuned to Jesus' message of following the commandments of the bible.
Paul on the other hand has proven himself to reject the Law of Moses, and begin a progressive form of Christianity that was cut away from the initial spirit of the Sect, by internationalizing it and having it accessible to the gentiles.
So he went to Rome, Greece and traveled the middle east and preached for a new religion that doesn't demand the rejection of their old pagan customs and idol worship. In Rome for example it was the hotbed of virgin births and 'Holy Ladies' and things of this sort. Paul accepted them as converts even though they still have their old customs and traditions.
So after 70 years when Christianity had become internationalized the Christian Bible has begun to be written by Christians who never forsook their old ways, of virgin births and Holy Ladies. They are the ones who introduced this concepts of trinity and virgin births and man deities, for all these things were completely unknown and unacceptable to the first initial Christians James and Paul who never ever believed that Jesus was anything more then a regular human being, and they certainly never believed that he was born of a virgin, for not James and not Paul ever mention such a thing, in fact if James was alive today and anyone would have approached him and told him that Jesus is God, he would have branded him a heretic instantly, for he was a devout Orthodox Jew, with one difference that separated him from the rest of the Jewish community, and that was that he believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and 99.9% of all Jews didn't believe.
Given this was the truth of the matter, and this is the history of what took place, and you can research this for yourself if you like then where does this question stand?
If the founders of Christianity James and Paul never believed Jesus to be born of a virgin, or that he was divine then isn't it strange that those who came way after and never had witnessed Jesus in real life, and never have left their old pagan ways and pagan theologies would give out basic lessons on Christianity to the actual founders of Christianity?
One could suggest as you said 'Catholicism', and call this new interpretation of what it means to be a Christian, but this doesn't disprove the fact that Catholicism is an infusion of pagan and Judaic beliefs and it was never the hardcore mainstream original intention of the founders of Christianity, for both Paul and James had never envisioned to go and try to internationalize this movement, James certainly never attempted this, and Paul only did it because Jews just wouldn't buy what he was selling, so he went to Europe and tried his luck there, and he had great success because he took the original Christianity who was deeply rooted in Judaism and was extremely adherent to Jewish Law and basically popularized some Jewish concepts to people who had never been asked to leave behind their pagan practices and traditions, and were never requested to circumcise and keep the Laws of Moses, gaining converts like that was not that difficult, in fact it was very easy.
So the question remains how can Tolkien as you suggest base a Character like Galadriel on a disputed and erroneous theology that runs oblique to authentic Christianity as was practiced by James and to some extend Paul in his early years?
Now if you'll suggest that James and Paul did believe in Immaculate Conception and virgin births, then isn't it absolutely amazing and astonishing that they didn't find an excuse to even mention it once in the entire corpus of the Christian Bible?
I'm no preacher or a politician…
(This post was edited by SaulComposer on Apr 29 2014, 4:37am)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Apr 29 2014, 5:46pm
Post #12 of 22
(490 views)
Shortcut
|
Now if you'll suggest that James and Paul did believe in Immaculate Conception and virgin births, then isn't it absolutely amazing and astonishing that they didn't find an excuse to even mention it once in the entire corpus of the Christian Bible?
The virgin birth is implicit in several passages of the Pauline writings.
Similarly the priniple of the immaculate conception is implicit in several Biblical passages from Genesis to Luke.
******************************************
https://www.facebook.com/slatesforsarah
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Apr 29 2014, 8:53pm
Post #13 of 22
(486 views)
Shortcut
|
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"The virgin birth of Jesus is the belief that Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary by the Holy Spirit and born while Mary was yet a virgin.[1] The New Testament references are Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38. The virgin birth is not mentioned in the Pauline epistles, nor is it mentioned in the Gospels of Mark or John."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
So the question that is glaring is why Paul which is the Father of Christianity as we know it today had never even hinted towards a virgin birth?
Furthermore, why the other two leading figures John and Mark never ever uttered a word about a Virgin Birth? Remember that the animus is on the concept of a virgin birth, immaculate conception only has validity if virgin birth has a validity, so we see that three of the most prominent figures in Christianity its founder and two of its major figures John and Mark not even mentioned it once in the entire Christian Bible.
I say that the reason they didn't mention it is because they never believed in such a thing. Remember that the Jews never rejected Jesus because he claimed that he was God, or that he was born of a virgin birth, you know why? because not James nor Paul and not even Jesus himself claimed such a thing. He was rejected for other reasons, just like many other figures who claimed to be the Messiah but were never accepted.
There would have been nothing surprising for the Jewish people to reject Jesus for claiming that he was God and born of a virgin birth, if anyone would have suggested such a thing to the Jews it was a lose lose situation for there was no way in the world that the early Christians would have preached something that was the total opposite of Judaism.
If you go to a Jew and tell him that this man is a god and that he was born of a virgin here are some miracles please believe in him now, that's like telling the Jew please don't waste your time believing fairy tales. For there was no chance in the world that such a thing would have even been considered by the Jews. And you know what? no one ever suggested such a theological argument to the Jews. Jesus for example said in one of his famous passages : ""Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans, go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" Mathew 10: 6 .
We see a crystal clear instruction against the internationalization of this Jewish Sect, Jesus clearly doesn't have any plans to go the Rome or Greece and seek converts there, because he didn't want to convert, or start a New Religion, all he wanted to do was to convince the Jews and only the Jews that he was the Messiah that they have been waiting for. But to start a New Religion? that was never the plan of Jesus or his brother James.
The new religion that we know today as Christianity was created by Paul, that's it. And he did it because he was going no where with the Jews, so he needed followers and that's why he went to the gentiles and created this mixture of Pagan practices and beliefs with some Jewish concepts.
James who was the direct biological link to Jesus who was his brother, never ever infused anything pagan in this new found Jewish sect. James just like Jesus were 100% authentic Orthodox devout Jews, who made a strong emphasis on keeping the Laws of Moses, breaking these laws was not even considered for a second, as Jesus instructed brilliantly : "1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the the 613 Commandments mentioned in the Torah are to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
So Paul in complete and categorical disobedience to Jesus' instruction had internationalized this Jewish Sect, and also utterly ignored Jesus' clear message of strong adherence to the Laws of Moses.
At the time of this great debate and contention between Paul and James the Romans had invaded Israel and the Romans had killed most of James' camp, they were powerless and very few in number, but Paul's camp survived for they were scattered among the nations seeking converts. That's why today Christianity is more like Paul's version then that of James', but if James would have been alive today he would have rejected Paul's version as been incongruous to the original intention of Jesus, and who better knows this then himself, he was the actual brother and primary student of Jesus.
This dilemma didn't escape the german founder of the reformation Martin Luther, who so much hated James and what he stood for that he advised to remove James from the Christian Canon altogether.
It takes some real arrogance to do such a thing, to brand the witness that actually walked with Jesus and learned from him directly as a disturbance to Christianity, while on the other hand uplifting and immortalizing Paul who by his own account admitted to never actually meeting Jesus.
I wonder how Martin Luther reconciled Jesus' clear instruction for not internationalizing the sect, and not leaving the Laws of Moses, with Paul's total failure to follow these simple instructions by Jesus himself.
I'm no preacher or a politician…
(This post was edited by SaulComposer on Apr 29 2014, 9:04pm)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Apr 29 2014, 9:34pm
Post #15 of 22
(460 views)
Shortcut
|
...he {James} was the actual brother and primary student of Jesus.
See John 7:5-- For neither did his brethren believe in him.
I think this was surprising that they didn't follow him, Here's why:
Some of them would have been old enough to remember their older brother Jesus, at the age of 12, going to the Temple and teaching the religious leaders (Luke 2:39-52).
They were also likely invited guests at the same wedding when Jesus performed his first miracle of turning water into wine (John 2:1-11).
They would also have known that Jesus healed an official’s son (John 4:46-54), healed the man on the sabbath at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-17), fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish (John 6:1-14) and walked on water (John 6:16-21).
In John’s gospel, all of these events took place before John’s statement that, ''For neither did his brethren believe in him.”
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Apr 29 2014, 10:25pm
Post #16 of 22
(466 views)
Shortcut
|
Well James was his brother after all and was the leader in his camp, therefore he represented the authentic message and teachings of Jesus, that's why he and his camp didn't like Paul because Paul had never spend a second with Jesus, he had never met him, so it makes lots of sense why James and his camp didn't like him and thought him to be an apostate.
As to the miracles, just read the many hundreds of miracles that have been taken place in front of the Jewish people on a daily basis, read the Talmud and see the number of miracles that took place just in the Temple, so 'miracles' were a daily part of all the Jewish people's lives, no wonder they were never impressed by Jesus, and the other miracle performers of that day. For example to be a member in the Jewish court of 120 members called the Sanhedrin, you must know all the languages of the world, all the Torah in its entirety including its mysticism and on top of that you must know and be an expert in magic and sorcery. Basically the Torah required the Jewish court to be just about the smartest people in the world when it comes to any topic, so no one will ever fool them or try to corrupt them. You might remember the name Mordechai from the book of Esther, he was the Jew that heard Bigtan and Teresh plot against the Persian King, they spoke a language that only they understood, but Mordechai had understood it since he was one of the exiled members of the Sanhedrin, and they didn't know that he spoke all the languages of the world. So he went along and told the king of this plot, he was later rewarded greatly for it.
So there is no surprise why anyone, be it James if that's what you're alluding to or just about any other Jew didn't believe Jesus, for miracles didn't impress them at all, they saw miracles and prophecy every day, they rejected him because he just didn't fit the description of the Jewish Messiah and didn't fulfill the tasks that were outlined in their Torah and Prophets. No one could have fooled the Jewish people about the validity of any given candidate to prophecy or Messianship. The task of accepting and rejecting prophets was given only to the Jewish people, and this was done through a legal authority such as the Sanhedrin or other Jewish scholarly consensus. Prophets were accepted and rejected by them, the fact is, that the Christians and the Muslims both accept this fact, for they all follow and accept the prophets that were accepted by the Jews, prophets such Jeremiah , Ezikiel, Zechariah, Joel, Tzephania, Habakuk, Nehamia, Amos, and so on…
Who were the ones that screened out these prophets from the hundreds of false prophets? the Jewish people, and they accepted them not because they performed miracles, but because they came to strengthen Jewish dedication and adherence to the Torah. They never preached to change even one small iota or deviate from the path of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. When a scholarly saint like that comes and he only wants good and only wants Jews to be more pious and follow God's commandments even more diligently , then there is no excuse to not accept his prophecy. However, if a prophet's prophecy never takes places, if the prophecy was for bad news, then its a chance that the people repented therefore if its never took place its understandable. But if the prophet spoke of good news, and blessings for the future those things must take place, otherwise he for sure is a false prophet. That's the medium.
Miracles are great evidence for the pagans who never witnessed a miracle once in their lives. Trust me no stone or wood made idol ever spoke back or performed miracles for them. But for the house of Israel who experienced the miraculous salvation from Egypt and saw many miracles every single day, there are other mediums to determine the validity of prophecy.
I'm no preacher or a politician…
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Apr 30 2014, 12:13am
Post #17 of 22
(449 views)
Shortcut
|
All that doesn't change the fact that since he did not believe until after his brother's death, anything he taught was learned second-hand from others or from memory of a time when he did not believe. I'm not disrespecting his position-- it was obviously superior to many-- but pointing to him as the closest original follower of Jesus is inaccurate. In this respect, he is no different than Paul who learned from the disciples and others close to Jesus.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Apr 30 2014, 3:04am
Post #19 of 22
(445 views)
Shortcut
|
From Wikipedia:
" "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, "Where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence."
Clearly Jesus appointed James his biological brother and student as his successor, and lo and behold the successor of Jesus had rejected Paul and his ways, for Paul as I explained has deviated from Jesus' clear instruction of not internationalizing this sect and not deviating even an iota from the biblical commandments of God which he considered forever binding…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just
I'm no preacher or a politician…
(This post was edited by SaulComposer on Apr 30 2014, 3:08am)
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
May 1 2014, 3:15am
Post #21 of 22
(428 views)
Shortcut
|
You are going into a depth of discussion that I cannot follow, for reasons of time, knowledge, and setting.
If this were a religious site, I might continue correspondence, but I'm really here to talk about Tolkien. As such, and for the reason of being selfish of my free-time, I must discontinue this line of inquiry, finding that it takes up too much time to research and formulate suitable replies to the vast amount of facts you have introduced and the claims you have made.
In order to do so, we would have to define the factual basis on which you are basing your case. Not only does it seem to include what is called the Old Testament, New Testament, Rabbinical Texts, and other non-traditional-canonical writings, but also a vast amount of tradition and historical account. To me, there is seemingly no end to the sources from which you cite facts, and I am not well-versed to follow them all or to contest their accuracy.
I don't ask you to define your basis-- or else I might feel obligated to reply-- instead, I must say this:
I was simply trying to make a single counter-point in my first post, one based in a smaller set of what I consider to be reliable sources. To me, a few of the sources you cite are of questionable veracity, and I cannot accept them, but neither can I take the time to disprove them or explain my doubts fully. We disagree on various things, and as we are quite unlikely to convince each other through the impersonal and treacherous medium of cyberspace, I think we ought to leave it at that.
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
May 1 2014, 3:47am
Post #22 of 22
(424 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes indeed this is a site about Tolkien, but a comment was made that has religious implications and nuances, so naturally in order to understand the question clearly, one needs to understand what are the sources, the histories and the contexts to concepts such as virgin births and immaculate conceptions, and the background of how these ideas came to be and what do they mean.
If there is no understanding of these topics, so what is the point of the question?
Best of Wishes
I'm no preacher or a politician…
(This post was edited by SaulComposer on May 1 2014, 3:49am)
|
|
|
|
|
What a useful Internetism. 
