The Lord of the Bible?

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Raynor

- the saviour, a godly being is sent to rekindle the hope in good; he is despised in two of the most powerful kindgoms of Men, (Gondor + Rohan); he sacrifices himself so that evil may not prevail and returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil; one of his inner circle, who for a time fell to temptation, repents;
- the King of Men returns to what might be called the holliest city of Middle-Earth; he heals the wounded and calls back the humans from the dead(Lazarus anyone?)
- of all the human race, the only two ones who are allowed into the "kingdom of heaven" are the humble ones ("Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" - Matei 3:5)
- the saviour is tempted by the power of evil, who promises all the riches of the world; he goes up the mountain, carrying a tremendous burden; for a while, a faithful one carries that burden for him.

Could you provide a little more detail for the lowly heathens?

Calling Gandalf the saviour needs more arguments, I think. Godly being, yes, but there's quite a difference between a low Ainu and the Son of God. Both sacrifice themselves, but one to save his companions from becoming balrog-barbeque, and one to redeem men from their sins. If "returns to seal the the faith of the incarnation of evil" refers to the resurrection, then I don't see this. If it refers to Jesus' return on Judgement Day then... well... no, I don't see it then either.
I'm waiting for Helen (mark12_30=Helen, if I understand this right? Sigh, I'm still too new... ) to post more about the Gandalf+Aragorn+Frodo ⊇ Jesus.

Of course Minas Tirith is the holiest city, there just isn't any other city left that is intact, unconquered and equal in age. Originally, I would think Osgiliath is a little holier (original capital of Gondor, connects two shores of a river, has the nicest Palantir), but Tolkien decided to destroy the great worldly city in favor of a mere citadel.


On the Borimir-Judas issue.
Judas betrayed Jesus because he was looking for a different kind of messiah. He thought that Jesus would use his 'messiahness' to obtain power and destroy the enemy (drive out the Romans). By betraying Jesus, he wanted to force him on this path.
Here I see a similarity with Boromir's situation, who thought that the Ring should be used to destroy the enemy with its power.
Difference: Judas planned his betrayal whereas Boromir was taken by madness. Both repented, but only Boromir was given a chance to redeem himself. The source of potential power was in one case entirely good, in the other entirely evil.
But we're not expecting one-to-one correspondency anyway.


On kings that heal.
There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). The first is founded on the theory that God appoints a person and its descendants to rule the people. It is no more than a right. The second means that the king also has some 'supernatural' abilities, the one to heal people among others, to justify their rulership over others. It is a right and an obligation. This imagination already existed for the old germanic kings, and probably other peoples as well. The two got mingled in the middle ages, but the source of the healing aspect isn't christian.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

On kings that heal.
There is a difference between 'Divine Right' and 'Königsheil' (King's Hail/Heal, can't translate it properly). The first is founded on the theory that God appoints a person and its descendants to rule the people. It is no more than a right. The second means that the king also has some 'supernatural' abilities, the one to heal people among others, to justify their rulership over others. It is a right and an obligation. This imagination already existed for the old germanic kings, and probably other peoples as well. The two got mingled in the middle ages, but the source of the healing aspect isn't christian.

Neither are as both are incredibly old ideas. The term Divine Right comes from, I think, St Paul, but the concepts of both are old as the hills. The 'proof' in Celtic times and back beyond would probably have come from performing some act of bravery or seeming magic (e.g. the Arthurian Sword in the stone story possibly originates from the seeming magic powers of smiths, turning rock into metal, which must've seemed incredible).

[Anguirel]

It should also be noted that Divine Right and Touching for the King's Evil did come to be interwoven. After the Hanoverians succeeded the Stuarts with a much more constitutional style of monarchy in Britain, the exiled Stuarts continued to claim both prerogatives and asserted their rights by frequently touching the scrofulous with some success.

There's even a story that the Hanoverian so-called George II was approached by a little boy who was dying of scrofula. The lad begged him to touch him with the magical Royal effect, but the unimaginative, tedious, constitutional George laughed in his face and told him to go and seek out the Stuart claimants to the throne if he really believed in the absurd superstition. The boy promptly went to James VIII and III, "The Old Pretender", in Rome, was touched by him and recovered from the disease...

[Macalaure]

davem, your links only show that:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Well, of course one is free to do whatever one wants to. Still, if his meaning is not coherent and conclusive, then it is invalid and of no substance. Of course, nobody can be punished for having an invalid opinion. (at least not where you and I live)