0

I am uncertain about this ... so I'm asking on meta first. Over on Christianity.SE, I posted this question:

ex deo nascimur in christo morimur per spiritum sanctum reviviscimus?

Which for ease of access, I'll just repost below. My question is simple - would it be more appropriate for here (because there may be biblical sources) instead of over there? thanks.

Ex Deo Nascimur,
In Christo Morimur,
Per Spiritum Sanctum Reviviscimus

From God we are born,
In Christ we die,
(and) in (/per) the Holy Spirit we are reborn (revived)

This is an old saying I think is attributed to the Rosicrucians. I'm trying to back track it further as it clearly predates them by at least a millennia.

Any ideas on the origins?

0
4

Christianity.SE is the right place for that. It is not a question of hermeneutics.

14
  • thanks Caleb. Just wondering additionally - if I were to ask about certain, specific linguistic aspects to the Latin to English translations of this, would it then be appropriate for here? (Hmmmm... I see from your SE sites that you've been on English Lang. Usage tons ... it seems like there's a parallel problem of overlap between hermeneutics.SE and C~.SE just as there is between English Language Usage and English Language Learners.) Sep 12 '14 at 5:16
  • This is not a general linguistics site, it's a Biblical hermeneutics site so the subject area is the process of iterpreting the Bible. Some random Latin saying doesn't necesarrily have anything to do with that.
    – Caleb
    Sep 12 '14 at 5:27
  • hmmm ... sorry Caleb, that doesn't make any sense to me. How can the 'process of interpreting the Bible' not involve the subject area of translations, which requires deep linguistics? Perhaps you meant only that 'some random Latin saying doesn't necessarily' fall under hermeneutics? But if the saying wasn't random - and did have its origins piecemeal from the Bible, where would I ask about it? The linguists would migrate it here or maybe to C~SE, wouldn't they? thx Sep 12 '14 at 5:40
  • I didn't say linguistics doesn't play a role in hermeneutics, I said linguistics does not define the scope of this site. Most Biblical hermeneutics questions involve linguistics but involving linguistics does not make something on topic here. Sayings of Christians or churches in any language are likewise not a subset of Biblical hermeneutics and thus off topic here.
    – Caleb
    Sep 12 '14 at 6:14
  • ok - still not clear where the razor slices thru my question - no worries... Sep 12 '14 at 6:21
  • @HowardPautz I think this previous meta Q&A is the "razor". Your Latin text isn't a text drawn from any recognized biblical canon - correct?
    – Dɑvïd
    Sep 12 '14 at 8:02
  • @David - That's part of why I asked - I am uncertain how much, if any of it comes from recognized canon. It's also possible that parts of it are alterations. This is why I'm unsure if posting here is the right place ... but I read the intention and help files and (perhaps mistakenly) thought this was a better choice than C~.SE. Suggestions? Thanks! Sep 12 '14 at 17:06
  • @HowardPautz Even if bits and phrases were quotations from Scripture, the context of the thing you are asking about is not the context of Scripture it is the context of the author(s) and their work, whether an individual or a group. That puts it in the domain of one of the religious sites such as Christianity.
    – Caleb
    Sep 12 '14 at 17:13
  • 1
    @Caleb (DUH! The light bulb finally illuminates above Howard's head.) Thank you! With that and David's link above, I hope I now understand. Again there's a gray area though - if I found that a portion of this 'saying' where based on (say) a poor translation of a specific Scripture passage, it would be on-topic if I could site same (and still give the whole saying as context to assist in thinking about it), right? Sep 12 '14 at 17:24
  • @HowardPautz Glad that makes some sense. In the case of something that is a quote it might be on topic here only if you were asking what the source meant in the context of Scripture, interpreting what the quoter might have meant would still be off topic. Evaluating their translation might work here, again if you knew what the source was and that it was intended as a translation.
    – Caleb
    Sep 12 '14 at 17:39
  • @Caleb - understood. Trying now to navigate the labyrinth of "texts [...] open for examination" David links to above. I suspect some of this originates from Tertiary texts --- but is probably too obscure to have been studied much... Sep 12 '14 at 17:54
  • @HowardPautz the SE framework can be a bit confusing. You may find this post helpful: Why can't I ask my 'big question'?
    – Dan
    Sep 26 '14 at 19:43
  • @Daи thanks - in addition to being generally helpful, did you want me to understand that also specific to this post being migrated here from hermeneutics? (The "Why can't ... question" is on meta.hermeneutics.) Yes, it can be difficult to make questions focused, specific enough for SE - especially when they deal with high level matters, such as Christianity, hermeneutics, philosophy, etc. It also has a lot to do with the people on each site. Philosophy.se, Mathematics.se, Physics.SE for instance, tolerate, even encourage discussion-style comments, whereas many other sites prefer otherwise. Sep 27 '14 at 15:07
  • @HowardPautz I meant it more in general, SE-wide.
    – Dan
    Sep 28 '14 at 18:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .