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
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » "Front section of the pew Bible" (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: "Front section of the pew Bible"
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh for goodness sake.

The Old Testament is so-called because that's the title - just like the book about the orphan who weds Mr Rochester is called Jane Eyre.

If newcomers aren't familiar then they can learn, can't they? After all, you wouldn't expect to know everything, including chapter headings about a book you hadn't read so why should they?

I'd have thought there are more important things to worry about than this.

At the risk of prolonging the tangent, it really isn't the title is it, as much as what we have chosen to call it. You will agree that Jews don't call it that, for example?

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Most Anglican churches I've been to have pew Bibles, including A-C churches.

That is not my experience. I dimly remember pew bible in an evangelical church about 39 years ago but I don't remember them in more recent visits to evangelicals. I thought they put everything on a screen nowadays.

--------------------
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
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
posted by dj_ordinaire
quote:
At the risk of prolonging the tangent, it really isn't the title is it, as much as what we have chosen to call it. You will agree that Jews don't call it that, for example?
And the correct title of the work by Marx and Engels is [I]Das Kommunistische Manifest[I] but if you say 'The Communist Manifesto' people know what you mean because it has entered into common usage.

Yes, I'm aware that my Jewish cousins call The Old Testament the Tanakh.

But to return to the original point: if newcomers don't know the terms they can learn them.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.

To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.
Eh?
Romans 9:11

--------------------
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
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502

 - Posted      Profile for Prester John   Email Prester John   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Gentiles have been grafted onto the body. It doesn't say anything about the same covenant.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.

To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.
Eh?
Romans 9:11
I'm well aware of the passage you link to. It says nothing of being grafted into the old covenant. We have a new and better covenant. The old covenant is dead.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.

'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.

To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.
We're grafted into the Israel of God. The two covenants are different; they promise and require different things.

And frankly, I don't see how you can be a Christian and not be at least a soft supersessionist; you can believe that the Old Covenant continues to be valid for those Jews who wish to continue to follow it, but the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Might I suggest that, for most visitors to Church (and even many Christians), the terms "Old" and "New" Testament communicate little meaning except for the "front" and the "back" of the Bible!

[If this is true of Christians, it hints at a lack of education by their churches].

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The terms "Old" and "New" do rather obscure the meaning: the portion of the Bible that dates from about 2300 years ago (or much more) and the portion that dates from about 1900 years ago. How about "very old" and "not quite as old"?

I suppose the Mormons and the Christian Scientists must be amused.

Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The old covenant is dead.

That is the exact opposite of what Paul argues in Romans where he says that God's promises, the covenant etc. are for ever. Romans 10: 29 says it is irrevocable

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I don't see how you can be a Christian and not be at least a soft supersessionist; you can believe that the Old Covenant continues to be valid for those Jews who wish to continue to follow it, but the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

So Roman Catholic aren't Christians? Evangelii Gaudium - their covenant with God has never been revoked

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And that's why it's a heretical piece of nonsense.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that's why it's a heretical piece of nonsense.

My Jewish friends lament the orthodoxen for being rabidly antisemitic.

--------------------
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
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

leo, the Roman Catholic Church does not believe what you purport and project it to believe. Saying that the Old Covenant was never revoked does not mean we believe it's just the same as the New. Just as saying that baptised Anglicans are members of the Church does not mean the Anglican Church is a branch of the Catholic Church.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

 - Posted      Profile for The Silent Acolyte     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Roman Catholic aren't Christians?

My comment is orthogonal to the thread topic.

Not in some folks' mind. I get asked several times a month, Are you Christian or are you Catholic? in my addiction chaplaincy in an area where ethnic Catholics are thick on the ground. It is evidence of self-serving troublemaking of many of the independent churches working the mission field of prison- and halfway-house-ministry.

Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And that's why it's a heretical piece of nonsense.

My Jewish friends lament the orthodoxen for being rabidly antisemitic.
See above.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie

It's not a case of God having changed his mind. This is the way it was always meant to be.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
Wow. I never had S. Paul down as a heretic.

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
Wow. I never had S. Paul down as a heretic.
Indeed he isn't because this is exactly what he says, that they have been cut off from the olive tree and the way back is through the new covenant.

[ 09. November 2014, 15:09: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie

It's not a case of God having changed his mind. This is the way it was always meant to be.
Then God entered the covenant with the Jews on false pretenses. That is to deliberately mislead them about the nature of the covenant.

Jengie

[ 09. November 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Trying (unsuccessfully) to score heresy points again Ad Orientem?

Well, if it says anything other than that the old covenant was made void by the new and that if the Jews are to be saved they must repent and be baptised into the new covenant, the same as the Gentiles, then yes, it's heretical crap.
So God changes his mind?

Jengie

It's not a case of God having changed his mind. This is the way it was always meant to be.
Then God entered the covenant with the Jews on false pretenses. That is to deliberately mislead them about the nature of the covenant.

Jengie

Not at all. It was always the intention of God that the old covenant was merely a precursor of the new or a pedagogue, as the Apostle calls it. That the Jews are blind to it is not the fault of God but rather a stiffnecked nation.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Excuse me, but the portrayal of the first covenant is that it is totally God's doing. It is God who promises the Jews that they will be his people. This is the promise to Abraham not the later experience of Sinia with Moses. He makes no condition on that. This is the covenant St Paul refers to in the New Testament by faith. If God can prove faithless in that whatever else, may he not also prove faithless in the present covenant and supplant the church because it was stubborn necked.

Nothing is easy.

Jengie

[ 09. November 2014, 17:21: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well then, our faith is for nothing, bcause he had regard for people because they've chopped a bit of their willy off. May I suggest that you stop eating bacon butties and start observing the sabbath. But really, if you can't see the absurdity of what you're saying you really haven't understood the gospel.

[ 09. November 2014, 17:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And another thing, if the old covenant is still valid for the Jews, why on earth did our Lord preach the new to them? It just doesn't make sense.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Did Jesus preach a new covenant though? Or did He preach a call to return to the Covenant that the people already had, with an emphasis on the spirit of that Covenant rather than the detail? His public preaching was largely indistinguishable from the Prophets, and no one would claim they were preaching a new covenant.

--------------------
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
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

At the risk of travelling further down south to Kerygmania, the Book of Hebrews was an exhortation, a desperate sermon written and spoken for a rapidly apostatising congregation in a particular context, a part of which was probably situational conflict with the continuing synagogue Jews (even if an early pre-Temple sacking date is posited). As such it is unlikely to be conciliatory. Whether we can maintain that unconciliatory supersessionist soteriology post Auschwitz, and post 1700 years of misguided anti semitic (or more accurately anti-Jewish) hatred that led to Auschwitz, is at the very least rather unlikely and profoundly unchristlike.

[Edit: anti-Semitic, not anti-semiotic ... though perhaps ... ]

[ 10. November 2014, 06:29: Message edited by: Zappa ]

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669

 - Posted      Profile for venbede   Email venbede   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
His public preaching was largely indistinguishable from the Prophets, and no one would claim they were preaching a new covenant.

Surely what is significant about Jesus is not what he taught but his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection?

Because that is the basis of my faith in God, I use the scriptures that formed him and his community (ie the Hebrew Scriptures) in my worship and understanding of God.

On their own they do convince me.

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
the Epistle to the Hebrews is pretty clear about the superiority of the New to the Old.

At the risk of travelling further down south to Kerygmania, the Book of Hebrews was an exhortation, a desperate sermon written and spoken for a rapidly apostatising congregation in a particular context, a part of which was probably situational conflict with the continuing synagogue Jews (even if an early pre-Temple sacking date is posited). As such it is unlikely to be conciliatory. Whether we can maintain that unconciliatory supersessionist soteriology post Auschwitz, and post 1700 years of misguided anti semitic (or more accurately anti-Jewish) hatred that led to Auschwitz, is at the very least rather unlikely and profoundly unchristlike.

[Edit: anti-Semitic, not anti-semiotic ... though perhaps ... ]

So whether or not supercessionism (as you call it) is true is completely irrelevant?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The whole point of the notion of a Covenant between God and his people, particularly the revelation of same in the Old Testament is that it is predicated on the faithfulness of God in the face of the manifest inability of His people to live up to it. If we are going to predicate a God who institutes a Covenant with His people and then turns around and announces that they are all accursed Christ Killers, bound to walk the earth with ever hand against them, save where the Mass Media has convinced the peons to support the state of Israel, and that he has announced another Covenant, thank you very much, then what criteria do we have for establishing that the Second Covenant counts for Sweet Fanny Adams. Either both the New Testament and the Old Testament are predicated on the faithfulness of God or neither are. Emeritus Pope Benedict may have been a little bit tactless in his phrasing but he was essentially correct when he stood up at Auschwitz and announced that the Nazi attack on the Jews was an attack on the relationship between God and His people.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well then, Christ died in vain and my faith is also, or so it would seem if the dispensationalists are to be believed. We have a God who distinguishes between Jew and Gentile, holding them to different standards. If you're a Jew all you need to do is cut your foreskin off, not eat pork etc and you'll be alright, even if you conspire to put your Messiah and God to death: you don't need to repent, have faith and be baptised.

Or, what seems more likely to me, it's just crypto-Judaism under guise of Christianity, completely detached from the ancient faith of the Church.

Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Originally posted by Ad Orientam:

quote:
If you're a Jew all you need to do is cut your foreskin off, not eat pork etc and you'll be alright, even if you conspire to put your Messiah and God to death: you don't need to repent, have faith and be baptised.
Just so we don't misunderstand one another. All Jews, qua Jews are responsible for conspiring and putting the Messiah to death?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Ad Orientam:

quote:
If you're a Jew all you need to do is cut your foreskin off, not eat pork etc and you'll be alright, even if you conspire to put your Messiah and God to death: you don't need to repent, have faith and be baptised.
Just so we don't misunderstand one another. All Jews, qua Jews are responsible for conspiring and putting the Messiah to death?
As a nation, at least, yes.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
His public preaching was largely indistinguishable from the Prophets, and no one would claim they were preaching a new covenant.

Surely what is significant about Jesus is not what he taught but his incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection?
Yes, I agree. But the statement I was commenting on only mentioned His preaching.

--------------------
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
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As a nation, at least, yes.

What nation? The modern state of Israel? Irrelevant. The people living in Judea at the time of Christ, well at least they had some limited involvement but the surely the majority were unaware of the events in Jerusalem until long after any opinion they had could make a difference? The Sanhedrin who sat in judgement of Jesus? Ah, now there's a group who could mostly be guilty of killing their Messiah. Though, the blame can't be levelled against members of that council not present at the time, nor the few who spoke up for leniency. Much less the entire Jewish people since then. Now, do you have any other insights you'd like to share from your reading of Mein Kampf?

--------------------
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
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As a nation, at least, yes.

What nation? The modern state of Israel? Irrelevant. The people living in Judea at the time of Christ, well at least they had some limited involvement but the surely the majority were unaware of the events in Jerusalem until long after any opinion they had could make a difference? The Sanhedrin who sat in judgement of Jesus? Ah, now there's a group who could mostly be guilty of killing their Messiah. Though, the blame can't be levelled against members of that council not present at the time, nor the few who spoke up for leniency. Much less the entire Jewish people since then. Now, do you have any other insights you'd like to share from your reading of Mein Kampf?
Then maybe you should condemn St. Peter and St. Stephen then. Read what they have to say in the Acts of the Apostles, or maybe they read Mein Kampf too? It might be handy to get rid of the Gospel according to St. John as well. This is nothing more than the ancient faith of the Church which has been disregarded by some because they have fallen under the influence of the Judeo-masonic lodge.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then maybe you should condemn St. Peter and St. Stephen then. Read what they have to say in the Acts of the Apostles

Yes, Peter addresses a crown in Jerusalem only a few months after a similar crowd had called for Barrabas to be freed, saying "you asked that a murderer be freed to you". Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin no more than a couple of years after the same council condemned Jesus to death and says "you have betrayed and murdered [the Righteous One]". Yep, quite clearly speaking to all Jews everywhere and all subsequent generations.
[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
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
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[dons Hostly Maple Leaf Tuque]

(Nice, isn't it -- the Tuque, I mean -- last used a couple of years ago in Purgatory, but now, for the first time...)

Enough. This is not the place to discuss anti-semitism or not. It is not the place to discuss the meaning of scripture passages. It is not the place to indulge in covert personal attack.

If I could move this to an appropriate board I would, but none of the other boards covers all the ways in which this discussion has moved on from a perfectly acceptable OP.

If I thought that exhortation would haul the discussion back to what this board is about, I would exhort you all. But I don't. So instead, I'm closing the thread.

John Holding
Ecclesiantics Host
[removes hostly Maple Leaf Tuque]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open 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