In ArtNet, Lewish Kachur writes an article about surrealist art which includes an image of the 1926 Max Ernst painting The Blessed Virgin Chastises the Infant Jesus Before Three Witnesses.
In the painting it will be seen that Mary's halo is in place and Jesus' is lying on the ground. His buttocks are a bright red so he in obviously getting a bit of a hiding. Corporal punishment has a long history in humankind, so would Mary ever have to spank Jesus?
This question raises some interesting conundra. Would it mean that Jesus as a child was not really human if he never misbehaved at all - i.e. didn't lead a normal childhood? How does that differ from sinning if he did misbehave? Was it really OK for her to be in a position of chastising God if Mary did spank Jesus - or even speak to hem harshly? Did she really have that authority over the 'son of god'?
Did Mary ever spank Jesus?
Moderator: Moderators
Did Mary ever spank Jesus?
Post #1"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
BlackGuelphOperative
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:21 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re:
Post #21[Replying to bernee51 in post #3]
The Thucydidean parts of the NT, Josephus, Pliny the younger and Suetonius are all sources which is what History grounds itself with. Isn't this sillier than saying there is no evidence for Alexander the Great existing?
The Thucydidean parts of the NT, Josephus, Pliny the younger and Suetonius are all sources which is what History grounds itself with. Isn't this sillier than saying there is no evidence for Alexander the Great existing?
-
BlackGuelphOperative
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:21 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re:
Post #22[Replying to Scrotum in post #4]
Aren't you taking a word used in one sense in one premise and then using it in a different one to complete the syllogism for a desired conclusion?
Everyone is used as a generalisation in the quoted text and then using it in the literal sense to complete the argument would mean it contains the equivocation fallacy.
Aren't you taking a word used in one sense in one premise and then using it in a different one to complete the syllogism for a desired conclusion?
Everyone is used as a generalisation in the quoted text and then using it in the literal sense to complete the argument would mean it contains the equivocation fallacy.
-
BlackGuelphOperative
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2024 4:21 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re:
Post #23[Replying to Nick Hallandale in post #7]
Why would the conduct be disgraceful?
To justify the argument you'd need to really justify that being in His Father's House was dishonouring His Mother and Father so that it could be sinful.
The point of the story as a whole seems to be against what you're trying to take away from it. Not minding context is not good for an argument nestled in textual criticism.
Why would the conduct be disgraceful?
To justify the argument you'd need to really justify that being in His Father's House was dishonouring His Mother and Father so that it could be sinful.
The point of the story as a whole seems to be against what you're trying to take away from it. Not minding context is not good for an argument nestled in textual criticism.
