homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tell that to the Tate-LaBianca families.

Right, there is one bad example - proving I know not what.

What has that got to do with me? I say that God never asks anyone to commit genocide, I don't care what your bible says or how you interpret it.

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Show me a Rabbinical school that holds an unorthodox dead teacher, who claimed to be divine, to be authoritative. It doesn't exist.

Jesus never claimed to be divine. Indeed, he pushed such claims away.

Except in the 4th gospel, which most scholars believe as NOT containing the original words of Jesus.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
He was arguing from a position far outwith of any Rabbinical school or form of a

William Barclay would disagree.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tell that to the Tate-LaBianca families.

Right, there is one bad example - proving I know not what.

What has that got to do with me? I say that God never asks anyone to commit genocide, I don't care what your bible says or how you interpret it.

Well that's what you say now but if you aren't bound by scripture, tradition, reason, or community that could change any time at all. Jim Jones started out the darling of Democratic politicians. Even the one he ordered killed was among his biggest supporters.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well that's what you say now but if you aren't bound by scripture, tradition, reason, or community that could change any time at all. Jim Jones started out the darling of Democratic politicians. Even the one he ordered killed was among his biggest supporters.

I see. And people who hold scripture, tradition, reason or community have never done any such thing. Ever.

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Show me a Rabbinical school that holds an unorthodox dead teacher, who claimed to be divine, to be authoritative. It doesn't exist.

Jesus never claimed to be divine. Indeed, he pushed such claims away.

Except in the 4th gospel, which most scholars believe as NOT containing the original words of Jesus.

Good grief Leo, do you really believe that? I mean. Really? Because if you do then you should do the decent thing and get out of the pulpit.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Mousethief said:
So it comes down to interpretation. Again. Still.

Not if I think that God, through the bible itself, says that what it contains is not equally binding or binding in the same way, which I think it does.
And how do you know what is binding and what is not? Interpretation. You tacitly admit this when you say "I think that...."

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
θεόπνευστος theopneustos (Theos, "God," pneo, "to breathe"), is used in 2Ti 3:16, of the Scriptures as distinct from other writings which are not breathed out by God.

Repeating something over and over is not the same thing as explaining what you think it means.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We could say that Scripture is dictated by God (I wouldn't go that far!). Or, we could draw an anaolgy with another example of God breathing, taking dirt made into the form of a man and breathing life into it - Scripture is "dirt", the product of natural human processes with all the mess that involves, and yet God chooses to breath life into that "dirt" and make Scriptures in some sense alive with his Spirit.

Fascinating metaphor! I'll have to chew this one over.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but the conservative Protestant answer to that one is that the writer/s of Peter's epistle/s refers to the apostle Paul's writings as 'scriptures' ... so this must mean that the NT epistles must have been considered to be Holy Writ before they were formally canonised ...

It's not clear to me that when John or Paul or whoever it was referred to Peter's writings as "scriptures" ("writings") that they meant the same thing that we do by that word. I'd like to hear from some of our NT scholars. Does "Scriptures" in this verse mean "Holy Writ equivalent to the Tanakh in authority and divine inspiration"? Frankly I'd be VERY surprised.

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The means, motive and manner by which we seek to put Scripture to the test need to be right because how test the historical veracity of God's word is less important than why we might wish to test it.

How about, because we seek the truth, and hold a high view of God?

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
A God who orders genocide is part of Christian tradition. Even if it didn't really happen.

But is it part of Christian tradition? Or is a bunch of desert nomads making up stories about God to justify their genocide part of Christian tradition? THAT is the issue.

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Allied victory against Nazism is something for which I can and do thank God, and yet I realise that people - including children - were killed in order to secure that victory.

Yes, but the Allies weren't God. Collateral damage in human undertakings is a vastly different beast than collateral damage in divine undertakings. God doesn't do things unintentionally. God, by his nature, doesn't get to say "Oops."

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
What I do know is that people like Karl: liberal backslider - and possibly you at a push - object to those narratives because they love the same God as me. However, there are other people who post here on the ship whose disregard for scripture is of an entirely different spirit and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

True but entirely irrelevant to this conversation.


quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Said psydebare:
And further, if you are accepting that Naziism was a disgusting evil, are you saying that genocide (if ordered by God) would have been an appropriate response in the twentieth century.

This is a pointless speculation precisely because scripture makes the future (eschatological) nature of final judgement (to which the Books of Joshua points) very clear.
Can you unpack this? What exactly is different about the 20th century CE and the 8th century BCE in scripture's escatological view of final judgment?

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They're both just as likely to decide that God wants them to cleanse the nation of all infidels, but the one who's only got the words in his head to justify doing so is far less likely to be able to persuade others to join his crusade than the one who can use scripture as his justification.

[Overused]

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tell that to the Tate-LaBianca families.

This is completely irrelevant. An exception doesn't disprove a probability. He said "more likely" not "the one does and the other never does."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm ... I'll be interested in Leo's answer. I suspect it'll be along the lines that Jesus never claimed to be divine but the Church believes Jesus to be divine ... so that makes it so because the Church believes it ...

Which is a circular argument, of course, because the Church believes Jesus to be divine based on what it believes to be his own statements and claims ...

Unless the naughty Church is redacting them in there of course ...

But I might be wrong and being harsh. What say you, Leo?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nietzsche springs to mind. Looking in to our own pit and finding the dark satanic thing we see there looking back and calling it an angel of light.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Mousethief said:
So it comes down to interpretation. Again. Still.

Not if I think that God, through the bible itself, says that what it contains is not equally binding or binding in the same way, which I think it does.
And how do you know what is binding and what is not? Interpretation. You tacitly admit this when you say "I think that...."
And? You use the word interpretation as if it's a synonym of plausible conjecture. It isn't. Hermeneutics is the quest right interpretation based on evidence and argumentation, not just the production of plausible conjecture. I'm not saying that I have the right interpretation, but I am saying that right interpretation is the proper aim of theology.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
θεόπνευστος theopneustos (Theos, "God," pneo, "to breathe"), is used in 2Ti 3:16, of the Scriptures as distinct from other writings which are not breathed out by God.

Repeating something over and over is not the same thing as explaining what you think it means.
Yes, and asking for explanations for self-explanatory things is not the same as seeking truth.

[Damn it. You know, the most impressive thing about Mousethief's contributions on the ship is his coding.]

[Fixed - Eliab]

[ 27. February 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hermeneutics is the quest right interpretation based on evidence and argumentation, not just the production of plausible conjecture. I'm not saying that I have the right interpretation, but I am saying that right interpretation is the proper aim of theology.

I agree. I just don't think you've got it.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Repeating something over and over is not the same thing as explaining what you think it means.

Yes, and asking for explanations for self-explanatory things is not the same as seeking truth.
Just because YOU think it's self-explanatory doesn't mean it is. If different people have repeatedly asked you to explain something, please at least consider the possibility that it needs explaining.

quote:
says Eliab:
[Damn it. You know, the most impressive thing about Mousethief's contributions on the ship is his coding.]

That hurts, Eliab. That hurts.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm glad we agree on something, Mousethief. For an explanation of God breathed that I wish I'd posited I refer you to Alan's dirt/breath analogy. I quite like it too, although I'd be a tad more towards inerrancy than he, I think.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Bible declares itself errant.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I did say I consider it to be at one extreme position in what "God breathed" may mean. And, as I've said before about models for viewing Scripture (and, practically anything else) we can simultaneously hold many different models that shed light from different directions.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone like to comment on the all aspect of all scripture is God-breathed?

Does that mean to you that it is all from God, that there are no parts of it that are not from God.. or something else.

What about the quotations from Satan - presumably they're not 'from God', are they?

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, what happens if there are parts of the bible that are supposed to be there, but didn't make it (eg at least one of the epistles which is mentioned but not present in the NT)? Does that mean we might be missing something important from God?

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
says Eliab:
[Damn it. You know, the most impressive thing about Mousethief's contributions on the ship is his coding.]

That hurts, Eliab. That hurts.
I would love to take credit for that (not saying I endorse it as fact, merely that it's a line I'd be proud of) but that was part of daronmedway's post, added, I presume, when he edited his own post to observe that he'd fucked up his code, but not feeling strongly enough about this actually to fix it.

My sole contribution was fixing his screwed up code. We both happened to use [square brackets] for our edits.

Sorry.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Anyone like to comment on the all aspect of all scripture is God-breathed?

Does that mean to you that it is all from God, that there are no parts of it that are not from God.. or something else.

What about the quotations from Satan - presumably they're not 'from God', are they?

Yes, I believe that it is all from God through the agency of human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The ways in which this took place are many and varied ranging from intentional prophetic utterances in the vein of "Thus saith the Lord" through to books like Philemon which do not make any explicit claims of inspiration.

The quotations of Satan are from God in the same was as the errors of Job's comforters are from God. Of course, in this sense the bible does contain error, especially in the book of Job. But that doesn't mean that the bible is ever intentionally false or intrinsically misleading.

[ 27. February 2014, 18:12: Message edited by: daronmedway ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Anyone like to comment on the all aspect of all scripture is God-breathed?

One aspect that I think is important is that it is "all scripture", not "all scriptures". Scripture is a unity, and if we pick and choose from the whole then what we get is something that isn't God-breathed.

quote:

Does that mean to you that it is all from God, that there are no parts of it that are not from God.. or something else.

What about the quotations from Satan - presumably they're not 'from God', are they?

A lot of Scripture contains sayings and events that are reported with the intent of showing them to be wrong. Take things in context, look at the whole ... that is from God.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This may or may not be interesting and/or relevant but I once attended a two-day study thing led by Bishop Kallistos Ware about the Orthodox view of scripture. Fascinating.

I asked several rather Protestant questions during the course of the two days. One of them was about the missing letters that are mentioned in the NT - the epistle to the Laodiceans for instance which the apostle Paul seemed to want read and circulated in the same way as his other epistles.

I asked what would happen if the letter turned up (and yes, I've since heard that there are versions purporting to be the self-same thing) and could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be authentically Pauline.

Would it have to be included in the canon.

The Bishop answered the question graciously, given that he didn't really approve of 'hypothetical questions' of this kind ... and his opinion was that should it be proven to be the genuine article then we might include it in the canon - provided it was agreed on a Conciliar level across the whole of the Orthodox Church and, equally, with input from RC and Protestant scholars ...

Which I thought was interesting.

Just sayin'.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
(and yes, I've since heard that there are versions purporting to be the self-same thing)

Oh yes, there definitely are, although it isn't totally clear to me how these and other extra-canonical works are less authentic than some of the stuff that made it in. I guess at some point someone decided that they were not good enough (probably Marcion. Which is a bit of a problem..)

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The canon wasn't formally established in its entirety until after Marcion's time, as far as I know ...

But it does seem that it was a general consensus apart from some disputed works fairly early on. The Eastern Churches were the last to accept the Apocalypse/Book of Revelations for instance.

From what I can gather, Marcion was regarded as a heretic pretty early on too.

Others will know more than I do.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Agreed, I'm not saying Marcion was the only one who was responsible, but his list of books is (if I recall correctly) one of the earliest that looks like the current canon. He definitely had a role in the establishment of which books were in the NT.

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Agreed, I'm not saying Marcion was the only one who was responsible, but his list of books is (if I recall correctly) one of the earliest that looks like the current canon. He definitely had a role in the establishment of which books were in the NT.

It may be that he recorded what was already reality on the ground, not that he created that reality.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It may be that he recorded what was already reality on the ground, not that he created that reality.

Yes, that might be possible too. I'm not claiming to be an expert.


According to wikipedia, Robert Price of Drew University says

quote:
But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly
I don't know enough about it to know how he makes that assertion, but there is a stream of scholarly opinion that Marcion was important in the development of the canon. Of course, they might all be wrong.

Let me withdraw 'definitely' from my last post. Obviously I can't be 'definite' about something I don't know about.

[ 27. February 2014, 19:56: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'd be much more worried sharing an island with a person who discounted scripture and tradition relying instead on their own subjective understanding of what the Holy Spirit was saying. Am I the only one who sees how that could become a problem? If so, the 70's provide plenty of examples.

Jonestown comes to mind immediately. It's not just "become", it "is" a problem, right off the mark.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Anyone like to comment on the all aspect of all scripture is God-breathed?

One aspect that I think is important is that it is "all scripture", not "all scriptures". Scripture is a unity, and if we pick and choose from the whole then what we get is something that isn't God-breathed.

The nouns in the Greek of 2 Tim 3.15-16 do not have in themselves any special 'holy' meaning. The word 'scripture' comes from the Latin for something written. It has acquired its meaning of 'special writing' later, I think. The noun in 3.15 is plural, while that in 3.16 is singular. So, I don't think one should hang too much on 'all scripture' (it is more literally 'every writing').

However, the context is the 'sacred writings' with which Timothy has been acquainted since childhood. So, 3.16 is referring to the Jewish sacred writings (which probably include what we call the Apocrypha). Any application of these verses to the NT is dubious.

On 'God-breathed', the direction is important! The older translations speak of "inspired by God" - breathed in. This gives a somewhat different idea than breathed out. One might also conjecture "breathed through".

Running with the Gen 2 picture, the breath of God gives life to the man of dust. It does seem to be the case that for many the text of the Bible is 'alive' - and not always in a comfortable way. I read of someone who gave a Bible back because "this book kicks". The idea also reminds me of J.B. Phillips is reported to have said about translating the NT: "it is like re-writing a house without turning the electricity off".

The truth is that the Bible does not have a well worked out doctrine of itself. But that it is because is it not there to point to itself, but to its principle subject, namely Jesus the Messiah.

Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like that, Higgs Bosun.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
leo. Yes He did. No He didn't.

There, perfectly polarized disposition.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
The truth is that the Bible does not have a well worked out doctrine of itself. But that it is because is it not there to point to itself, but to its principle subject, namely Jesus the Messiah.

That's why we need the Church.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Agreed, I'm not saying Marcion was the only one who was responsible, but his list of books is (if I recall correctly) one of the earliest that looks like the current canon. He definitely had a role in the establishment of which books were in the NT.

It looks like a part of the New Testament.

See Wiki

Particularly this quote.

quote:
Marcion's canon consisted of eleven books: A gospel consisting of ten sections from the Gospel of Luke edited by Marcion; and ten of Paul's epistles. All other epistles and gospels of the 27 book New Testament canon were rejected.
This article may also be worth looking at.

It may be more accurate to say that Marcion's initial collection, coupled with the opposition to his particular cosmological outlook, acted as a spur to the collection of a wider canon, including the three other canonical gospels and various other writings.

As Wiki says, Marcion's own writings have been lost, but here, from the Gnostic Society Library, is an imaginative attempt to reconstruct the Antitheses, by which he attempted to draw out the contradictions between the OT God and the NT God (his version of the NT).

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stevhep and others who’ve commented on this; sorry I’ve taken a while to respond but I’ve been away from my computer for some twenty hours since last night. Herewith my original point, Stevhep’s comments, and my ripostes labelled SL;

SL: As far as I know there is no institutional church that can claim such a tradition (that is, an authoritative extra-biblical tradition) because the only continuous INSTITUTIONS that could make such a claim, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, have compromised their claim to such an authority by accepting the very clearly wrong teaching involved in the post-Constantinian link with the state and the wars, crusades, inquisitions etc to which that link led, as opposed to the 'peaceable resident aliens' status of the church as taught in the NT. The institution may have been continuous; the teaching changed radically and in opposition to the original 'Biblical Tradition'. Those churches are not reliable guardians of the tradition.
________________________________________
Stevhep: The practices of the Church certainly changed as her relationship with the State changed. This partly because of the relationship itself and partly because as a result of the new status of The Church she had an influx of new members primarily motivated by personal careerist and opportunist factors, rather like the burgeoning membership of parishes associated with a good school.

SL: ‘The practices of the Church certainly changed…’. I’d actually regard it as a change in the doctrine of the Church itself. Or such a change in the doctrine of how the church relates to the surrounding world that the Church realistically wasn’t the same afterwards despite the institutional continuity. A change from a body living as peaceable resident aliens among their pagan neighbours to a body enforcing its beliefs by inquisition and promoting crusades against Islam, northern European pagans and Albigensians is a major change; and because the original version is clearly taught in the NT, including by one Peter, the supposed first ‘Pope’, in his first epistle, and the Church went on following this changed doctrine and the resultant dubious practices for centuries, at horrendous cost in warfare and persecution – ‘reliable guardians of the tradition’ – NO WAY!

Not just an ‘influx of new members primarily motivated by personal careerist and opportunist factors’ – essentially the new post-Theodosius arrangement (it wasn’t just Constantine, Gamaliel) made everybody in the Empire nominally Christian; which surely is a significant change OF DOCTRINE compared to the NT DOCTRINE of spiritual rebirth through faith. And yes, lots of those careerists and opportunists ended up in high places where they could dictate both beliefs and practices despite an apparent lack of real faith and spiritual understanding – including, it seems to me, the papacy itself. It is rather one of the points of Anabaptism that we don’t attract quite so many such careerists and opportunists because we can’t offer them worldly power outside our congregations, or the inquisitions and armies by which they might wrongly impose their beliefs on others.

Stevhep; However that might be it is not clear to me that the doctrines taught by the Church as being essential to salvation in the post-Nicene era were different to those in the ante-Nicene one. And such developments of doctrine as have occurred, as in the Immaculate Conception, do not spring from the relationship to the State. The Just War doctrine which was applied to the Crusades is not binding upon Catholics and the Catechism makes it plain that pacifism is an acceptable stance for Christians to hold.

SL: I must admit I don’t have a readily accessible list of what the RCC does consider ‘essential to salvation’. I would have thought that any such list should mostly be in the category of what CS Lewis used to call ‘Mere Christianity’ – the ‘common ground’. The point I’m making is not about such doctrines; I’m more than happy that vast numbers of Christians who aren’t Anabaptists ARE ‘saved’ including lots of RC/Orthodox/Anglican etc.
In some ways the problem is precisely that so many of those churches’ ideas/ beliefs/ practices/ etc. are outside the ‘common ground’ and are ‘non-essentials’ which divide Christians from one another. The doctrines about Church/State relations are a major non-essential in themselves, and there are other doctrines which may not be ‘about’ church and state but appear to have grown from the ‘mindset’ that goes with that dubious link – again, including much of the position of the papacy. How essential, since you mention it, is the ‘Immaculate Conception’?

‘Just War’ – too big to debate here in full, but again, to go from the status of peaceable resident aliens to even needing a ‘Just War’ doctrine (and for Crusades!!!???) seems to me to be a questionable change, definitely related to the link with the state, and one not needed by a free/ believers’ church in the Anabaptist mode.

Stevhep; Anabaptists as long as they have the luxury of being small do not have to contend with the problems that arise from being the largest or most influential body of believers within a given society. Nor with the problems that flow when members of the faith occupy between them all the high offices of the State. When that occurs they may discover that whilst maintaining the purity of their core doctrines intact they do become horribly compromised in other ways and suffer severe reputation all damage.

SL: ‘When that occurs…’ – not too likely while we stick to our core ideas, of course. More likely, I guess, in a democratic society – but then Anabaptists wouldn’t be trying to impose our Christian beliefs as such, rather we’d be supporting the freedom of others to disagree with us. Remember that ‘being the largest and most influential’ is partly the artificial effect of those careerists and others, and also of the assumption of a ‘Christian country’ and of being a nominal Christian as a result. Also note that I don’t claim Anabaptists are problem free – but at least our problems don’t result in us burning other people at the stake, or going crusading in their lands. (Munster is a long gone mistake – a point covered earlier on the thread I think)

This doesn’t really affect the basic point I made – that the ‘Constantinian’ or ‘Christendom’ churches, precisely by being that kind of church, are outside the original Christian tradition, and so can’t meaningfully claim to be guardians of that Tradition – even if they now disavow the idea of the ‘Christian country’ and stop hanging on to the remnants of the privileged position that resulted, it’s a bit late to restore the credibility of that claim to special authority.

On Marcion - he didn't finalise the NT canon - but the issues he raised meant that the canon was mostly agreed shortly after Marcion, rather than in the 4th century as Dan Brown tried to make out in that book! One of the implications being that the canon wasn't an imperial church trying to impose the faith on the Empire, but a persecuted church trying to decide (and close enough to the original writing for the attempt to be meaningful) which scriptures they considered reliable enough to risk their lives for.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This doesn’t really affect the basic point I made – that the ‘Constantinian’ or ‘Christendom’ churches, precisely by being that kind of church, are outside the original Christian tradition, and so can’t meaningfully claim to be guardians of that Tradition

I am not as knowledgeable about Anabaptist traditions as I should be, but you are here basically setting forth a restorationist ecclesiology. Are Anabaptists restorationist?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Anyone like to comment on the all aspect of all scripture is God-breathed?

Does that mean to you that it is all from God, that there are no parts of it that are not from God.. or something else.

What about the quotations from Satan - presumably they're not 'from God', are they?

Actually, based on John 11:49-52, no, I would not presume that:

quote:
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.


--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's about time somebody got it right.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve Langton

I used to believe that restorationist view until I looked at both early church history and the history of the Reformation. There never was a "golden age" of the Christian church. In my view of document dating (which I appreciate isn't everyone's), the earliest written NT document was probably Galatians. A vehement record of a serious row. It kind of set the tone for the next two millenia.

Frankly, it's a wonder we're here at all. There is more grace of God in that than we will ever see if we insist on looking for faults outside our own traditions.

We got the Trinity, the fully God fully human Jesus, the bible, the Creeds and a whole lot of disparate understandings of how they all might fit together.

I said earlier that I have this view of growing understanding of God. I suppose it fits with a growing understanding that the end game remains pretty much the same. A multitude that no one can number, of every tribe and tongue, singing blessing and honour and glory and power be unto him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever. Amen.

Given our tendency to disagree most about things we understand the least, this may take some time yet. Protective tribalism seems a long time a-dying. But die it must, in order for enemies to become friends.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There never was a "golden age" of the Christian church ... A vehement record of a serious row. It kind of set the tone for the next two millenia.

Frankly, it's a wonder we're here at all.

Yup, the Church is always going to be made up of imperfect people like you and me!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye mousethief, the worst possible source of teaching apart from all others.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This interview by Tom Wright seems quite interesting and speak to some of the issues we're discussing here - I've not yet heard the audio, but what do you think of his 'New Marcionism'?

quote:
"If God is a good God, he must react extremely strongly against that which destroys, corrupts or defaces human life. So the whole thing about the one versus the other is ill-conceived"


[ 28. February 2014, 07:40: Message edited by: pydseybare ]

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm going to have to listen to that again. Looks like a New Frontiers communal blog. Some interesting stuff in the comments as well.

From my first listen, I think Tom Wright sat on the fence, at least to some extent. It's not clear whether he meant that Joshua 6 was an illustration of God doing a shocking thing, or it was a shocking thing that a good God would react strongly against! He could have meant either, which may indeed have been his intention; leave the question open.

I think it's clear he was opposed to Marcion-type "oppositioning" of the OT God and the NT God, seeing a much more mixed picture than that. That's pretty much where I'm at, so perhaps it's not surprising that's what struck me most clearly.

I quite liked the idea at the end that instead of the church giving 19th century answers to 16th century questions it should try giving 21st century answers to 1st century questions. Or something like that anyway.

He ranged pretty far and wide in 40 minutes of fascinating dialogue. Thanks for the link. It will repay a more considered listen.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quick one before going out till about 10.00 tonight;
No, I'm not setting forth a simplistic restorationist ecclesiology and there have been lots of developments and scholarship over the years I wouldn't want to throw out. BUT the 'Christendom' thing, even if God can bring some good out of it, is not a development but simply a contradiction of the original tradition and still poses many problems as a result. I want to scrap that illegitimate development and at least review much of what came from that development rather than the Bible.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


From my first listen, I think Tom Wright sat on the fence, at least to some extent. It's not clear whether he meant that Joshua 6 was an illustration of God doing a shocking thing, or it was a shocking thing that a good God would react strongly against! He could have meant either, which may indeed have been his intention; leave the question open.

There is an interesting further link in the comments at the bottom of the original blogpost where he addresses this

quote:
From Jessica: A struggle of mine recently has been reconciling (or rather trying to reconcile), the seemingly violent and vindictive God of the Old Testament with the non-violent, "love your enemies," Jesus. How would you put those two radically different views of God, together?

(NTW):An old question but best answered by a fresh reading of Isaiah 40-55 on the one hand – the greatest outpouring of divine love and mercy you can imagine – and of, say, John’s gospel on the other, in which when the spirit comes he will convict the world of sin in righteousness and judgment.

Beware of false either/or divisions. Of course there is a problem in, for example, the book of Judges. My view is that when God called Abraham he knew he was going to work through flawed human beings to bring about redemption . . . and that the fault lines run forward then all the way to the cross, the most wicked thing humans ever did and the most loving thing God ever did. Once we figure out how all that works (probably never!) we will understand the rest. Part of the problem the way the question is posed is by assuming that we can abstract an ethical ideal from one part of scripture and use it to judge the actions of God in another part of scripture, as though scripture were given us so we could form such dehistoricized abstract ethical judgments! Life just isn’t like that.

I totally reject his analysis, which appears to be very little more than 'it is in the bible, we know that God doesn't change, so no matter how it appears, he can't.'

This seems to be a very convoluted way of not answering the question.


quote:
He ranged pretty far and wide in 40 minutes of fascinating dialogue. Thanks for the link. It will repay a more considered listen.
He seemed to spend almost all of that time proposing a 'things are the way that they are because I say so' theology.

Which is not far from what some have accused me of.

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In fact, to say that (for example) the genocidal massacre happened because it was God's plan all along to get through this to Jesus Christ as saviour is to make the whole thing even worse not better, in my opinion.

I definitely don't want to believe in a God who followed through with a really bad idea in order to later pop up with something he could point as a much better one.

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
pydseybare

I think we may be hearing the same words in different ways.

If I can put it this way. Rachel Held Evans and her growing blog audience are a long way removed, theologically, from the communal blog membership of the first (predominantly NF people) blog link. Personally, I'm closer to Rachel Held Evans' views than New Frontiers views.

I read Tom Wright as avoiding a direct answer to both audiences, probably for the same reason in both cases. He didn't want to be a quotable poster boy for either. Probably because his view is more nuanced than that of either of those different audiences. You might see him being a bit mealy-mouthed as a result. I'm going to do a bit of digging to see if I can find a considered view in one of his books or articles. Interviews are not normally the best source of a considered opinion on anything.

In the radio broadcast, unless I'm mistaken, Tom Wright was giving a bit of aid and comfort to some of the less conservative folks in NF by the way he talked about atonement and the role of women. Post-Virgo, some things are changing in NF-world; it's a bit early to say how much.

[ 28. February 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184

 - Posted      Profile for pydseybare   Email pydseybare   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
pydseybare

I think we may be hearing the same words in different ways.

Fair enough.

quote:
If I can put it this way. Rachel Held Evans and her growing blog audience are a long way removed, theologically, from the communal blog membership of the first (predominantly NF people) blog link. Personally, I'm closer to Rachel Held Evans' views than New Frontiers views.
That's true, I hadn't really thought that he could be talking to different audiences.

quote:
I read Tom Wright as avoiding a direct answer to both audiences, probably for the same reason in both cases. He didn't want to be a quotable poster boy for either. Probably because his view is more nuanced than that of either of those different audiences. You might see him being a bit mealy-mouthed as a result. I'm going to do a bit of digging to see if I can find a considered view in one of his books or articles. Interviews are not normally the best source of a considered opinion on anything.
Agreed. Interested to hear what you find out. I know that Wright is a popular writer, but I'm not been keeping up with things in this sphere. In fact I only found it by accident and thought it was interesting.

quote:
In the radio broadcast, unless I'm mistaken, Tom Wright was giving a bit of aid and comfort to some of the less conservative folks in NF by the way he talked about atonement and the role of women. Post-Virgo, some things are changing in NF-world; it's a bit early to say how much.
I don't know anything about this.

--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."

Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Show me a Rabbinical school that holds an unorthodox dead teacher, who claimed to be divine, to be authoritative. It doesn't exist.

Jesus never claimed to be divine. Indeed, he pushed such claims away.

Except in the 4th gospel, which most scholars believe as NOT containing the original words of Jesus.

Good grief Leo, do you really believe that? I mean. Really? Because if you do then you should do the decent thing and get out of the pulpit.
Given that most theologians have thought thus for nearly a century, then anyone with a smattering of theology would leave their pulpits and there will hardly be any preachers left except liars and fundamentalists.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I'll be interested in Leo's answer. I suspect it'll be along the lines that Jesus never claimed to be divine but the Church believes Jesus to be divine ... so that makes it so because the Church believes it ...

Which is a circular argument, of course, because the Church believes Jesus to be divine based on what it believes to be his own statements and claims ...

Unless the naughty Church is redacting them in there of course ...

But I might be wrong and being harsh. What say you, Leo?

Not at all circular - I have no need to say anything since there is nothing in the synoptics where Jesus claims to be divine - unless you can show me.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
Show me a Rabbinical school that holds an unorthodox dead teacher, who claimed to be divine, to be authoritative. It doesn't exist.

Jesus never claimed to be divine. Indeed, he pushed such claims away.

Except in the 4th gospel, which most scholars believe as NOT containing the original words of Jesus.

Good grief Leo, do you really believe that? I mean. Really? Because if you do then you should do the decent thing and get out of the pulpit.
Given that most theologians have thought thus for nearly a century, then anyone with a smattering of theology would leave their pulpits and there will hardly be any preachers left except liars and fundamentalists.
Only liars and fundamentalists believe that Jesus, both directly and indirectly, claimed to be God and that the scriptures accurately testify to that claim? O Kaaay.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely the church believes Jesus to be divine because of the experience of the resurrection?

We can argue endlessly about the literal historic truth behind the scriptures but we can never be certain. If St John's gospel shows Jesus identifying himself with God, that's how we are to think of it.

The Christian faith is revealed in the scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness.

--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools