The only time I've ever heard of the "swoon theory" was in relation to a group of explanations for the apparent resurrection of Jesus... i.e. that he didn't die but merely fell unconscious - and thus the resurrection was not the miracle it has since been claimed as. But not sure in what context you read the phrase to know if this is what you mean?
The word in the singular has many different meanings (pun intentional). In the plural, it meant "resources", chiefly pecuniary resources, and is probably a loan word from French "moyens".
To "swoon" means to lose consciousness without being hit on the head. It's similar to fainting, although "faint" is more commonly reserved for women. The Swoon Hypothesis is a modern attempt (going back about 200 years to the era when science started to be widely used to understand how things work) to explain the resurrection (return to life after being dead) of Jesus. The essence is that Jesus did not die on the Cross, but merely fainted ("swooned") from weakness, pain, heat and starvation, and was revived later in his tomb. This hypothesis is an attempt to discredit the entire basis of Christianity: that Jesus was, indeed, dead, and was resurrected by God. There is considerable support for the swoon theory--especially among Muslims and other non-Christian communities. Perhaps the explanation that's most difficult to refute is the well-attested fact that crucified Roman prisoners did not die quickly. According to the Bible, Jesus was lashed to the cross for only about six hours. A young, healthy man would not have died so quickly. This is a good time to remind everyone that Roman prisoners were not nailed to their crosses, which, of course, could have caused them to bleed to death rather quickly. They were bound with ropes.
"Means" refers to all the resources a person has, which he can use to accomplish something. This can include a method, but it probably also includes other resources.
Whoah! In the UK, at least, swooning is something largely restricted to women , sometimes metaphorically. I have, on occasions, come close to fainting. I have never been close to swooning.
Off-topic, I suppose, but there have been a few cases of bodies discovered which have certainly been nailed through hands and feet. But this might have been just a regional habit, or not even Roman. Religious iconography often has a questionable connection with historical reality: even the cross itself is a doubtful shape. The word used in Matthew 10.38 is "stauros" which means an upright pale or stake
We seldom use the word on this side of the Whaleroad, especially in speech. It is rather awkward to pronounce, after all!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Fraggle oft forgets that there is an English language outside of the USA. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
However, I cannot find any evidence that the usage in the US is as he describes. Perhaps its restricted to Rhode Island, or.....
Awkward? It's like "spoon" but with a "w"... what be awkward about that? Is it an accent thing? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Woo" is a difficult syllable to pronounce, because the semivowel "w" is pronounced in almost the exact same way as the vowel "oo." You have to put a little work into it to make sure that the W and the OO are heard as two different sounds. Try this test: speak the word "woman," and then the word "wooing." Even though "wooing" has one phoneme LESS than "woman," you'll probably find that it is LONGER in speech, because the looser "oo" in "woman" makes a cleaner transition from the opening "w."
While wondering why, one wandered wildly. Well, what wondrous whimsy waited? Wow! Wistful wishes were waiting. Wonderful! I have spent ten minutes repeating woman and wooing and many other words. Result, as a native speaker - regardless of the length of the phonemes, or their juxtaposition - I find no difficulty in pronouncing any of these words. Therefore, I call bullshit on your assertion that "woo" is a difficult syllable to pronounce.
You think "w" and "oo" are pronounced almost the exact same way? I'd love to hear your accent if you think that... where is your accent typical of (so I can try to find the accent somewhere)? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Surely nothing to do with the transition but with the length of the "o" compared to the "oo"? The same as "soon" being longer than "son"? As Ophiolite says, as a native speaker of English, I have no difficulty in pronouncing "swoon" or "wooing", and I'm struggling to see how the "w" sounds similar to "oo". Not really knowing phonetics, I'll struggle to explain what I mean, but it seems the "w" is the way the lips transition into the vowel sound, and the "w" also requires the lips to change shape during the sound. The "oo" on the other hand doesn't require the lips to change position during the sound. Maybe it really is an accent thing?
Usually they used ropes, that is correct, but recently there were heel bones found with nails through them. So it seems sometimes the romans also used nails. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://pastor-storch.de/2010/03/27/jesus-23-tod-und-auferstehung-1/ But one doesn't still need to bleed to death until a big artery or vein was damages. The deathman knew their trade and how to do it "right". As noted before, crucifcation takes days to lead to death. It was meant as slow deadly torture, and it it was done in a way to make it a slow death. Six hours are unusually short. Historic sources tell of 3 to 7 days till the victims were dead. And usually the dead bodies were not taken down quickly, but left on the crosses as deterrent.
That's a very narrow definition. The basic definition of "schmooze" is to gossip, to chatter, to make idle conversation. It's a Yiddish word, from Hebrew shmu oth, gossip or report.
That's odd - I'm sure you are right about its origin, but I understood it to mean getting romantic, kissing and cuddling, chatting somebody up in an intimate way. Perhaps this is a UK usage, or I've just got it wrong.
