Celebrity Doppelganger


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@anatess2,

A better Eastwood photo for that comparison:

So, I saw an interview with Scott (I think it was with Joe Rogan) and he was asked if his dad just tells him, we need you for this role in Trouble with the Curve... and Scott said his dad doesn't do that.  He said he had to audition for all his roles including Trouble with the Curve and his dad wouldn't hire him if he wasn't the right guy for the job.  He wouldn't even dream of asking his dad for a role over dinner - it's just not the way he grew up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, I saw an interview with Scott (I think it was with Joe Rogan) and he was asked if his dad just tells him, we need you for this role in Trouble with the Curve... and Scott said his dad doesn't do that.  He said he had to audition for all his roles including Trouble with the Curve and his dad wouldn't hire him if he wasn't the right guy for the job.  He wouldn't even dream of asking his dad for a role over dinner - it's just not the way he grew up.

Scott actually has a bit of James Dean in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Scott actually has a bit of James Dean in him.

They say that George Washington may have been the father of America, but Ben Franklin fathered more Americans.

It's like they say: The Vikings weren't French or English, but the French and English are Vikings. Or as a Mongolian noted, "Mongolians aren't east Asians, but east Asians are all a little bit Mongolian."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

They say that George Washington may have been the father of America, but Ben Franklin fathered more Americans.

It's like they say: The Vikings weren't French or English, but the French and English are Vikings. Or as a Mongolian noted, "Mongolians aren't east Asians, but east Asians are all a little bit Mongolian."

According to David McCullough, there really weren't a lot of confirmed "little Ben Franklins" running around.  There were a lot of speculations, and certainly a lot of evidence that he slept around.  But the only acknowledged Franklin bastard was William.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

They say that George Washington may have been the father of America, but Ben Franklin fathered more Americans.

It's like they say: The Vikings weren't French or English, but the French and English are Vikings. Or as a Mongolian noted, "Mongolians aren't east Asians, but east Asians are all a little bit Mongolian."

Unless they are Irish or Japanese??

(Of course, with British Occupation, the Irish as separate comes into a high degree of questionable heritage, in addition, though the legends have the Irish pushing out the Vikings after around 250 years, in truth there was probably a great deal of intermarriage and mixing historically speaking [and of course, the Irish would object to be lumped in with the English]).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Unless they are Irish or Japanese??

(Of course, with British Occupation, the Irish as separate comes into a high degree of questionable heritage, in addition, though the legends have the Irish pushing out the Vikings after around 250 years, in truth there was probably a great deal of intermarriage and mixing historically speaking [and of course, the Irish would object to be lumped in with the English]).

The Vikings notoriously raped and pillaged for centuries up and down Ireland's western coast, and were not shy about kidnapping slaves (and wives). There's a fair amount of Irish blood in present-day Iceland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2020 at 2:09 PM, Vort said:

The Vikings notoriously raped and pillaged for centuries up and down Ireland's western coast, and were not shy about kidnapping slaves (and wives). There's a fair amount of Irish blood in present-day Iceland.

It was not so much that the Vikings were more notorious than anyone else - generally kidnapping slaves (and wives) is what historically maintained genetic diversity and why many scientists believe that there is neanderthal DNA in some current human populations.  As a side note - Does anyone know the ancient Biblical difference between a wife and a concubine?   Answer - Wives were considered more noble because they came to the marriage with a dowry - which by law if the marriage ended or was broken must be returned to her.   However, I have learned by experience that this particular fact should not be discussed in depth with one's current wife - as defined and understood by modern laws and standards.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As a side note - Does anyone know the ancient Biblical difference between a wife and a concubine?

People today harbor the notion that concubines were "kept women", more or less slave sex toys or glorified prostitutes. I do not know the general status in ancient times of everyone called a "concubine", but in the Bible, the term denotes a WIFE—a lesser wife, to be sure, someone who is socially inferior to and subject to the full wife or wives, but still a wife. Sexual relations between a man and his concubine were considered completely moral. Children of a concubine were considered the man's children, legitimate and not bastards, though their inheritance rights may have differed from those of the children of a "full-status" wife.

To be sure, the distinction was preserved and sometimes used as a justification for this or that. The Nephite prophet Jacob taught his people the word of God, that each man was to have no more than one wife, and no concubines. Obviously, the Nephites were already tending toward wickedness and sexual license. Had Jacob stopped at teaching that they were to have only one wife, doubtless some of the men would have gone ahead with other women, then said, "Hey, they aren't really wives, just concubines." Jacob taught implicitly that the Lord demanded that the whole institution of "lesser marriage" was to cease, because there was no "greater" or "lesser" marriage, just one marriage between one man and one woman, and no other marriages for that man (or woman).

This is something of a pet peeve of mine, like people who insist that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was an "unwed mother". Such mistakes might be well-intentioned and even honest, but they are still mistakes, and propagating them leads to dark places where we don't want to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

As a side note - Does anyone know the ancient Biblical difference between a wife and a concubine?   Answer - Wives were considered more noble because they came to the marriage with a dowry - which by law if the marriage ended or was broken must be returned to her.   However, I have learned by experience that this particular fact should not be discussed in depth with one's current wife - as defined and understood by modern laws and standards.

 

The Traveler

In relation to this, though I haven't heard this in the church for a long time, I learned about another take on this from the Church (well, not from the Catholic Church, but from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

What they taught was that for our understanding was that those who were wives (in the Bible) were those who were eternally sealed to their Husbands.  They had been married for time and all eternity through the power of the Priesthood.

Those who were concubines were not married under the power of the Priesthood, and thus were not only for time, but were not recognized as marriages under the covenants of the Lord.  Thus, they were concubines rather than full wives.

48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  So, what does all this have to do with Celebrity Dopplegangers?

Probably absolutely nothing....

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
5 hours ago, Vort said:

People today harbor the notion that concubines were "kept women", more or less slave sex toys or glorified prostitutes. I do not know the general status in ancient times of everyone called a "concubine", but in the Bible, the term denotes a WIFE—a lesser wife, to be sure, someone who is socially inferior to and subject to the full wife or wives, but still a wife. Sexual relations between a man and his concubine were considered completely moral. Children of a concubine were considered the man's children, legitimate and not bastards, though their inheritance rights may have differed from those of the children of a "full-status" wife.

It should also be noted that the children birthed of concubines were consided to be children of the wife's rather than of the concubine.  The children themselves though has full status in the family.

5 hours ago, Vort said:

This is something of a pet peeve of mine, like people who insist that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was an "unwed mother". 

It depends on which scriptorial account you are reading.

In the account in Matthew, Jospeph married Mary before Jesus was born. In Luke's account, it indicates that they were still engaged, but not married when Jesus was born.

I guess it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Here are the scripture references.

Matthew 1:

18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick examplewas minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So in Matthew's account, Joseph married Mary (verse 24) before they travelled to Bethlehem.

Luke 2 gives a slightly different account:
 

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

The key words in the KJV are espoused wife.  An espoused wife is a promised wife and the words denote an period of engagement before the actual marriage.

That's why other english versions of the Bible, such as the NIV use the following terminology:

5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

Anyway, I'm just presenting this here for interest since I don't think it really matters if the marriage took place before or after the birth.  Personally, Matthew's account seems the most plausible given the culture of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott said:

An espoused wife is a promised wife

Nonsense. "Espoused" doesn't mean "promised". It means "married". Joseph and Mary were married. They had not yet consummated their relationship. But Mary was Joseph's "espoused wife", not "girlfriend" or "fiancée". That is why Joseph's response to Mary's pregnancy was to consider "putting her away privily", which is to say "divorce her quietly". You don't divorce your fiancée. You divorce your wife. Otherwise, it's not a divorce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
4 hours ago, Vort said:

Nonsense. "Espoused" doesn't mean "promised". It means "married". 

This is not the meaning in Biblical text, at least as it pertains to our culture.  Espousal is the prepatory period before the formal marriage ceremony and before the couple lives together.  Marriages were different back then.  

LDS.org doesn't say that much on the matter, but it says the following:

espouse: To promise in marriage. “To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” (Luke 1:27.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1977/04/a-short-glossary-of-obsolete-words-in-the-king-james-new-testament?lang=eng

Russel M Nelson says the following:

Scriptures declare that His mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph. They had participated in the first of two components of a Jewish marriage ceremony. Their espousal might be likened to an engagement in our culture, which is followed later by the second component of a marriage ceremony....

Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was expecting that holy child. Joseph desired to protect her privacy, hoping to spare Mary the punishment given to a woman pregnant without a completed marriage. 


https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson/christ-savior-born/
 

From other Biblical dictionaries and sources:

Espouse:  (2 Samuel 3:14), to betroth. The espousal was a ceremony of betrothing, a formal agreement between the parties then coming under obligation for the purpose of marriage. Espousals are in the East frequently contracted years before the marriage is celebrated. It is referred to as figuratively illustrating the relations between God and his people 

Or from other non-LDS sources, including an explanation of why Luke may have used the word translated into espoused:

http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/qa082000c.html

Question: What does the Gospel mean when it refers to Mary as the "espoused wife" of Joseph?

 Answer: An "espousal" or "betrothal" is a formal agreement to marry. In modern American terms it would be something more than an engagement, yet less than a marriage.

In the Jewish culture of New Testament times, a young woman became marriageable at age twelve and a half. At a ceremony of betrothal, the bride and groom would exchange marital consent, but normally the bride would remain in the house of her father for somewhere between three months and a year. Marriage had the aspect of a man acquiring title to his bride, and only later did he acquire actual possession.

We know that Mary and Joseph had completed the contract of betrothal from the testimony given by St. Matthew (i: 18) and St. Luke (ii: 5). What causes some confusion, though is Luke's reference to "Mary his espoused wife" when Mary and Joseph were already in Bethlehem, seeking a place to give birth to our Infant Lord. For them to be in Jerusalem together, Joseph had obviously taken Mary from her father's house, and it seems clear that their betrothal had already been converted into a marriage. As he was aware of the circumstances of our Lord's conception by the Holy Ghost, Luke was probably following the custom of referring to a non-consummated marriage as an "espousal."

 

Quote

That is why Joseph's response to Mary's pregnancy was to consider "putting her away privily", which is to say "divorce her quietly".

That's why I said the accounts of Matthew and Luke vary.  Also in Biblical times you did indeed need a formal type of annulment or divorce to and a betrothal.  

Anyway, I provided the commentary only for historical interest and ancient Jewish culture.  Why does it matter when the formal marriage ceremony took place and why would it bother you? 

Personally, given the culture I think Matthew's account of the marriage being complete is the most plausible.  It wouldn't bother me either way though.

This seems interesting from cultural or historical question, but seems like a non-issue from any moral standpoint.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scott said:

The key words in the KJV are espoused wife.  An espoused wife is a promised wife and the words denote an period of engagement before the actual marriage.

 

es·pouse
/iˈspouz/
 
verb
past tense: espoused; past participle: espoused
  1. 1.
    adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life).
    "he turned his back on the modernism he had espoused in his youth"
     
  2. 2.
    ARCHAIC
    marry.
    "Edward had espoused the lady Grey"
Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

es·pouse
/iˈspouz/
 
verb
past tense: espoused; past participle: espoused
  1. 1.
    adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life).
    "he turned his back on the modernism he had espoused in his youth"
     
  2. 2.
    ARCHAIC
    marry.
    "Edward had espoused the lady Grey"

That's not how it is used in the Bible.  Unless of course you disagree with Russell M Nelson and all the Biblical scholars, and Jewish culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's not how it is used in the Bible.  Unless of course you disagree with Russell M Nelson and all the Biblical scholars, and Jewish culture.

That's EXACTLY how it is used in the Bible and Jewish culture.  I don't know who those Biblical Scholars are that you mentioned.  And your interpretation of what Russel M. Nelson stated is questionable.  There is CULTURAL MARRIAGE and there is SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE.  The preparation of a dowry has NOTHING at all to do with the SPIRITUAL marriage that starts as soon as both sides sign their names to the marital contract.  If you want to compare it to modern times, you can go have your fancy royal-like wedding with reception and bridezilla moments and days and days of parties... you are not married UNTIL you sign that marital contract.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2006/12/mary-and-joseph?lang=eng

What does it mean that Joseph and Mary were espoused?

“Espousal among the Hebrews was significantly more binding than are our engagements today. It was entered into by written agreement and was considered the formal beginning of the marriage itself. While the couple might not actually live together for as much as a year after the betrothal—a time designed to allow the bride to prepare her dowry—the espousal was as legally binding as the formal marriage” (Gerald N. Lund, in Celebration of Christmas: A Collection of Stories, Poems, Essays, and Traditions by Favorite LDS Authors [1988], 31).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And your interpretation of what Russel M. Nelson stated is questionable. 

Here is the exact words Russell M Nelson used:

Their espousal might be likened to an engagement in our culture 

What is your interpetation?

Quote

I don't know who those Biblical Scholars are that you mentioned. 

Take your pick:


https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/were-mary-and-joseph-married-or-engaged-at-jesus-birth/

https://biblehub.com/topical/e/espouse.htm

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/espouse/


Or just look at the other translations of the Bible:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A5&version=NIV

https://biblehub.com/dbt/luke/2.htm

https://biblehub.com/web/luke/2.htm

https://biblehub.com/ylt/luke/2.htm

 

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What does it mean that Joseph and Mary were espoused? “Espousal among the Hebrews was significantly more binding than are our engagements today. It was entered into by written agreement and was considered the formal beginning of the marriage itself. While the couple might not actually live together for as much as a year after the betrothal—a time designed to allow the bride to prepare her dowry—the espousal was as legally binding as the formal marriage” 

Notice the first sentence uses the words engagement, though the second sentence uses terminology not accepted by historians.  It may have been the first step in the marriage/wedding process, but it wasn't the last and the bride and groom weren't allowed to consumate the marriage until you are married.   

You aren't married at the beginning of the ceremony, it is at the end.

Why does that bother you and Vort so much?

Why does it matter since there was no immorality what-so-ever involved?   
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here is the exact words Russell M Nelson used:

Their espousal might be likened to an engagement in our culture 

What is your interpetation?

Take your pick:


https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/were-mary-and-joseph-married-or-engaged-at-jesus-birth/

https://biblehub.com/topical/e/espouse.htm

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/espouse/


Or just look at the other translations of the Bible:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+2%3A5&version=NIV

https://biblehub.com/dbt/luke/2.htm

https://biblehub.com/web/luke/2.htm

https://biblehub.com/ylt/luke/2.htm

 

Notice the first sentence uses the words engagement, though the second sentence uses terminology not accepted by historians.  It may have been the first step in the marriage/wedding process, but it wasn't the last and the bride and groom weren't allowed to consumate the marriage until you are married.   

You aren't married at the beginning of the ceremony, it is at the end.

Why does that bother you and Vort so much?

Why does it matter since there was no immorality what-so-ever involved?   
 

One more time... CULTURAL CEREMONY versus MARITAL COVENANT.

IT MATTERS.  Jesus was not conceived OUT OF WEDLOCK which does not FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

One more time... CULTURAL CEREMONY versus MARITAL COVENANT.

IT MATTERS.  Jesus was not conceived OUT OF WEDLOCK which does not FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

All accounts in the scriptures say that the conception happened before the marriage.   The question is if the birth did.

Matthew 1:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

You seem to be using the arugment that the espousement was a "cultural marriage".   If so, to avoid arguement, fine.   But how does that somehow change things?   Sexual relations were not allowed during what you are calling a "cultural marriage" and either way there was no unrightousness at all involved.   

So why does it matter?

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

All accounts in the scriptures say that the conception happened before the marriage.   The question is if the birth did.

Matthew 1:

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

You seem to be using the arugment that the espousement was a "cultural marriage".   If so, to avoid arguement, fine.   But how does that somehow change things?   Sexual relations were not allowed during what you are calling a "cultural marriage" and either way there was no unrightousness at all involved.   

The espousement was the MARITAL COVENANT and the beginning of the CULTURAL MARITAL CEREMONY.

 

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

So why does it matter?

IT MATTERS in the same way that a perfect Christ had to be baptized - TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

Show us using one source from our Church leaders or any Biblical scholar.  

I already did above.  Like I said - the DOWRY has nothing at all to do with a Marital Covenant.  Just because you haven't given the dowry yet doesn't mean you have not made the marital covenant when you signed the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share