Discussion:
THE PASSION of CHRIST - in the ORIGINAL VERSION
(too old to reply)
Wotan
2004-02-29 13:55:12 UTC
Permalink
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.

In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !

(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)

---------------

The Holy Bible.
Translated out of the orginal tounges and with the former
translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's
special command.

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 18

When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with
his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden,
into the which he entered, and his disciples.

And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for
Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.

Judas then, having received a band of men and officers
from the chief priests and pharisees, cometh thither with
lanterns and torches and weapons.

Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon
him, went forth, and said unto them, whom seek ye ?

They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto
them, I am he. And Judus also, which betrayed him, stood
with them.

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they
went backward, and fell to the ground.

Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye ? And they
said, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore
ye seek me, let these go their way:

That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of
them which thou which thou gavest me have I lost none.

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote
the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The
servant's name was Malchus.

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the
sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I
not drink it ?

The the band and the captain and the officers of the Jews
took Jesus, and bound him,

And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in
law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same
year.

Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews,
that it was expedient that one man should die for the
people.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another
disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest,
and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out
that other disciple, which was known unto the high
priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and
brought in Peter.

Than saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter,
Art not thou also one of this man's disciples ? He
saith, I am not.

And the servants and officers stood there, who had
made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed
themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed
himself.

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and
of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I
ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple wither
the Jews always resort; .....

Note: Jesus always refers to the Jews in the third
party. He was not a Jew - he was a Palestinian.

.... and in secret have I said nothing.

Why askest thou me ? Ask them which heard me,
what I have said unto them: behold, they know what
I said.

And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers
which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand,
saying, Answerest thou the high priest so ?

(And the arrogant vermin are still slapping Palestinians
around he face today)

Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear wittness
of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me ?

Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high
priest.

And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said
therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples ?
He denied it, and said, I am not.

One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman
whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the
garden with him ?

Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

The led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgement: and it was early; and they themselves went not
into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but
that they might eat the passover.

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation
bring ye against this man ?

They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor,
we would have not delivered him up unto thee.

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him
according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto
him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death;

That they saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he
spake, signifying what death he should die.

Then Pilate entered into the judgement hall again, and
called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of
the Jews ?

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself,
or did others tell it thee of me ?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation and
the chief priest have delivered thee unto me: what hast
thou done ?

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but
now is not my kingdom of hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a King then ?
Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King.
To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into
the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate sayeth unto him, What is truth ? And when he
had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and
sayeth unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you
one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release
unto you the King of the Jews ?

Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but
Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Chapter 19
--------------

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it
on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,

And said, Hail, King of the Jews ! And they smote
him with their hands.

Pilate therefore went forth again and sayeth unto them,
Behold, I bring him forth to you, that yea know that
I find no fault in him.

The came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man !

When the chief priest therefore and officers saw him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, take ye him, and crucify him:
for I find no fault in him.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by out
law he ought to die, because be made himself the Son
of God.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more
afraid;

And went again into the judgement hall, and saith unto
Jesus, Whence art thou ? But Jesus gave him no
answer.

The saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me ?
Knowest thou that I have power to crucify thee, and
have power to release thee ?

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all
against me, except it were given thee from above:
therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the
greater sin.

And from thence forth Pilate sought to release him:
but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar's friend: Whosoever maketh
himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought
Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgement seat in
a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew
Gabbatha.

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your
King !

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him,
crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify
your King ? The chief priests answered, We have
no king but Caesar.

The delivered he him therefore unto them to be
crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called
the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew
Golgotha:

Where they crucified him, and two other with him,
on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

And Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross.

And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH
THE KING OF THE JEWS.

This title then read many of the Jews: for the place
where Jesus was crucified was neigh to the city:
and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and
Latin.

Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate,
Write not, The King of the Jews, but that he said
I am the King of the Jews.

Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

----------

And they are still manipulating our authorities to do
their dirty murders for them today. As in the case
of Iraq.
Matthew Robb
2004-02-29 17:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
---------------
The Holy Bible.
Translated out of the orginal tounges and with the former
translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's
special command.
The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 18
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?

cheers

matt
Fed Up
2004-02-29 17:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Matthew Robb
2004-02-29 20:16:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:28:28 GMT, "Fed Up"
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
As it's not even internally consistent (timing of death of Jesus
between John and Synoptics), the points of external flaws are pretty
immaterial

But, for example, the jews probably did have a way to kill their own
legally, by stoning. Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews. there is no
historical record of releasing a favoured prisoner of the crowd.
Pilate was finally summoned to Rome for being too bloodthirsty, not
too lenient...


cheers

matt
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-29 23:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:28:28 GMT, "Fed Up"
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
As it's not even internally consistent (timing of death of Jesus
between John and Synoptics), the points of external flaws are pretty
immaterial
But, for example, the jews probably did have a way to kill their own
legally, by stoning.
The Pharasees tried to stone Jesus, but the people wouldn't do it.
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Post by Matthew Robb
there is no
historical record of releasing a favoured prisoner of the crowd.
Pilate was finally summoned to Rome for being too bloodthirsty, not
too lenient...
It was a horrable thing Pilate did. The beating in the movie is all Pilate.
Modern Jews are commenting on a text they have not read.
Matthew Robb
2004-03-01 07:27:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:26:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
As it's not even internally consistent (timing of death of Jesus
between John and Synoptics), the points of external flaws are pretty
immaterial
But, for example, the jews probably did have a way to kill their own
legally, by stoning.
The Pharasees tried to stone Jesus, but the people wouldn't do it.
Is this the same bunch of people who later said "his blood be on us
and our kids"?

The Bible is a whitewash to make Xianity acceptable to Rome
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Oh right. So who is to blame for his suicide?
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
there is no
historical record of releasing a favoured prisoner of the crowd.
Pilate was finally summoned to Rome for being too bloodthirsty, not
too lenient...
It was a horrable thing Pilate did. The beating in the movie is all Pilate.
In the movie, doubtless
Post by Tarver Engineering
Modern Jews are commenting on a text they have not read.
Maybe. but modern scholars aren't

cheers

matt
Jez
2004-03-01 12:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:26:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
As it's not even internally consistent (timing of death of Jesus
between John and Synoptics), the points of external flaws are pretty
immaterial
But, for example, the jews probably did have a way to kill their own
legally, by stoning.
The Pharasees tried to stone Jesus, but the people wouldn't do it.
Is this the same bunch of people who later said "his blood be on us
and our kids"?
The Bible is a whitewash to make Xianity acceptable to Rome
Indeed. And once it had roman approval, it changed it's nature again,
into a religion of population control.
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Oh right. So who is to blame for his suicide?
No-one, God didn't come down to die on that 'Roman cross'.
Only the deluded belive he did.
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
there is no
historical record of releasing a favoured prisoner of the crowd.
Pilate was finally summoned to Rome for being too bloodthirsty, not
too lenient...
It was a horrable thing Pilate did. The beating in the movie is all Pilate.
In the movie, doubtless
Post by Tarver Engineering
Modern Jews are commenting on a text they have not read.
Maybe. but modern scholars aren't
Indeed.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Fed Up
2004-03-01 18:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:26:57 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
As it's not even internally consistent (timing of death of Jesus
between John and Synoptics), the points of external flaws are pretty
immaterial
But, for example, the jews probably did have a way to kill their own
legally, by stoning.
The Pharasees tried to stone Jesus, but the people wouldn't do it.
Is this the same bunch of people who later said "his blood be on us
and our kids"?
The Bible is a whitewash to make Xianity acceptable to Rome
Sounds like your thinking is very confused.
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Oh right. So who is to blame for his suicide?
One can see how your "thinking" works: Christ committed *"suicide"* did he?
Can you describe how he nailed *himself* to the cross?

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Matthew Robb
2004-03-02 09:01:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:42:24 GMT, "Fed Up"
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Is this the same bunch of people who later said "his blood be on us
and our kids"?
The Bible is a whitewash to make Xianity acceptable to Rome
Sounds like your thinking is very confused.
Perhaps you'd like to expand or justify that remark?
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Oh right. So who is to blame for his suicide?
One can see how your "thinking" works: Christ committed *"suicide"* did he?
Can you describe how he nailed *himself* to the cross?
If he came here to die, that's suicide.

cheers

matt
Fed Up
2004-03-02 19:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:42:24 GMT, "Fed Up"
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Is this the same bunch of people who later said "his blood be on us
and our kids"?
The Bible is a whitewash to make Xianity acceptable to Rome
Sounds like your thinking is very confused.
Perhaps you'd like to expand or justify that remark?
Not necessary.
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Oh right. So who is to blame for his suicide?
One can see how your "thinking" works: Christ committed *"suicide"* did he?
Can you describe how he nailed *himself* to the cross?
If he came here to die, that's suicide.
You don't understand the definition of the word.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Matthew Robb
2004-03-02 21:54:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:01:32 GMT, "Fed Up"
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
The Bible is a whitewash to make Xianity acceptable to Rome
Sounds like your thinking is very confused.
Perhaps you'd like to expand or justify that remark?
Not necessary.
Evasion
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Oh right. So who is to blame for his suicide?
One can see how your "thinking" works: Christ committed *"suicide"* did
he?
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Fed Up
Can you describe how he nailed *himself* to the cross?
If he came here to die, that's suicide.
You don't understand the definition of the word.
I understand fine thanks. You're choosing a narrow interpretation to
suit your purposes. Why not. It's one of the smaller distortions
required to sustain your beliefs

cheers

matt
Jez
2004-03-01 12:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:28:28 GMT, "Fed Up"
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
As it's not even internally consistent (timing of death of Jesus
between John and Synoptics), the points of external flaws are pretty
immaterial
But, for example, the jews probably did have a way to kill their own
legally, by stoning.
The Pharasees tried to stone Jesus, but the people wouldn't do it.
Post by Matthew Robb
Crucifixion was a punishment for *treason*, not
blasphemy, hence the Romans killed him, not the jews.
God came here to die on that Roman Cross.
Poor deluded fool ! How can you belive such myths???
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by Matthew Robb
there is no
historical record of releasing a favoured prisoner of the crowd.
Pilate was finally summoned to Rome for being too bloodthirsty, not
too lenient...
It was a horrable thing Pilate did. The beating in the movie is all Pilate.
Modern Jews are commenting on a text they have not read.
But, as far as we know, none of the events related to in the bible
ever happened.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Harry Crun
2004-03-01 17:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
But, as far as we know, none of the events related to in the bible
ever happened.
Not true! Some of the gospels allude to the destruction of the temple (by
the Romans) and that definitely happened. As to the other stuff, you may be
right.

Harry C.
Fed Up
2004-03-01 18:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
But, as far as we know, none of the events related to in the bible
ever happened.
You mean, as far as *you* know, or rather, don't know.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
PeteM
2004-02-29 17:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
--
PeteM
Tarver Engineering
2004-02-29 23:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
Sort of like the Gospels were written from different perspectives, as one
would expect.
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-01 08:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
Sort of like the Gospels were written from different perspectives, as one
would expect.
Well, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation my RC
lot use, "The gospels are not 'lives' or biographies of Jesus, but are four
versions of the record of the Good News brought by Jesus". They're not
supposed to be an historical record.

But that misses the point. The important thing in this context is how you
interpret them. I've not seen the film but if it actually does try to
make an anti-Semitic point (something Mel Gibson strenuously denies, btw,
and his account of what he thinks it's about is pretty close to my
understanding of the Passion) or if someone interprets it to justify
anti-Semitism then that's way out of line with most contemporary Christian,
and certainly most contemporary Catholic, interpretations of the Passion.

Steve
Wotan
2004-03-01 12:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Well, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation my RC
lot use, "The gospels are not 'lives' or biographies of Jesus, but are four
versions of the record of the Good News brought by Jesus".
They're not
Post by Stephen Glynn
supposed to be an historical record.
But that misses the point. The important thing in this context is how you
interpret them. I've not seen the film but if it actually does try to
make an anti-Semitic point (something Mel Gibson strenuously denies, btw,
and his account of what he thinks it's about is pretty close to my
understanding of the Passion) or if someone interprets it to justify
anti-Semitism then that's way out of line with most contemporary Christian,
and certainly most contemporary Catholic, interpretations of the Passion.
Steve
Most "contemporary interpretations" of almost everything I have
seen are shallow and empty "trendy" and watered down versions,
which are more interested in apology and recruitment, than in
the centre of any matter.

I was recently in a CofE church (I am a Methodist) and found myself
trying to sing a hymn I have known by heart since childhood, without
having the faintest idea what the (new trendy) words were supposed
to mean - or how to handle the idiotically "modern" music to which
they had been set.

"Tell it like it is" is a growing movement of which no sensible person
could possibly object.

And that's what the James 1st version ( the only legitimate version so
far as I am concerned) does.

If that upsets the Jews - then bloody hard luck ! They and their
evil religion, which claims that Christians do not even have a right
to exist - but that they have a right to kill who they please - and
are "guiltless" when they do, does more than a little to upset me !

They reserve the inaliable right to be as viciously anti-Christian
as they choose (removing and desecrating Christian symbols in
public places right across America) - but, oh dear me, nobody
must say anything that might make people dislike them !

What two faced stinking hypocrites these hate filled Christ murdering,
Palestinian murdering reptiles are !

The only one of the troop of people turned out in the Daily
Mail smokescreen exercise who made any honest or sensible
comment at all, was the pretty young English vicar (a young lady)
who said "Easter is not about fluffy bunnies and Easter eggs".

Now I wonder who it is that has tried to tell us that it is, whilst
burying the real story of Easter, to the point that most children
don't have the faintest idea why they are now on holiday from
school ?
Fed Up
2004-03-01 18:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
If that upsets the Jews - then bloody hard luck ! They and their
evil religion, which claims that Christians do not even have a right
to exist - but that they have a right to kill who they please - and
are "guiltless" when they do, does more than a little to upset me !
They reserve the inaliable right to be as viciously anti-Christian
as they choose (removing and desecrating Christian symbols in
public places right across America) - but, oh dear me, nobody
must say anything that might make people dislike them !
You do know that the Jews are God's chosen people, according to the Bible?

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Wotan
2004-03-01 19:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
You do know that the Jews are God's chosen people, according to the Bible?
The Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the
Jews. And their evil Talmud religious book, which is
a depraved perversion and distortion.
Fed Up
2004-03-02 21:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Post by Fed Up
You do know that the Jews are God's chosen people, according to the
Bible?
The Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the
Jews. And their evil Talmud religious book, which is
a depraved perversion and distortion.
Read the Old Testament again.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Harry Crun
2004-03-02 23:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Post by Fed Up
Post by Fed Up
You do know that the Jews are God's chosen people, according to the
Bible?
The Jews are "God's chosen people" according to the
Jews. And their evil Talmud religious book, which is
a depraved perversion and distortion.
Read the Old Testament again.
Reference to the Talmud (a remark which demonstrates an astounding
ignorance) aside, the key question is surely why God, after making a
covenant with the Jews, and then helping them (when they were good) for
several hundred years, suddenly gives up on them. He allows them to be
conquered and subjugated by just about every power in the middle East over 5
centuries, and then to be dispersed following 70CE and ejected from their
promised land. Why would God play games with them like that?

Harry C.
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 09:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Well, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation
my RC
Post by Stephen Glynn
lot use, "The gospels are not 'lives' or biographies of Jesus, but
are four
Post by Stephen Glynn
versions of the record of the Good News brought by Jesus".
They're not
Post by Stephen Glynn
supposed to be an historical record.
But that misses the point. The important thing in this context is
how you
Post by Stephen Glynn
interpret them. I've not seen the film but if it actually does
try to
Post by Stephen Glynn
make an anti-Semitic point (something Mel Gibson strenuously denies,
btw,
Post by Stephen Glynn
and his account of what he thinks it's about is pretty close to my
understanding of the Passion) or if someone interprets it to justify
anti-Semitism then that's way out of line with most contemporary
Christian,
Post by Stephen Glynn
and certainly most contemporary Catholic, interpretations of the
Passion.
Post by Stephen Glynn
Steve
Most "contemporary interpretations" of almost everything I have
seen are shallow and empty "trendy" and watered down versions,
which are more interested in apology and recruitment, than in
the centre of any matter.
I was recently in a CofE church (I am a Methodist) and found myself
trying to sing a hymn I have known by heart since childhood, without
having the faintest idea what the (new trendy) words were supposed
to mean - or how to handle the idiotically "modern" music to which
they had been set.
"Tell it like it is" is a growing movement of which no sensible person
could possibly object.
And that's what the James 1st version ( the only legitimate version so
far as I am concerned) does.
If that upsets the Jews - then bloody hard luck ! They and their
evil religion, which claims that Christians do not even have a right
to exist - but that they have a right to kill who they please - and
are "guiltless" when they do, does more than a little to upset me !
They reserve the inaliable right to be as viciously anti-Christian
as they choose (removing and desecrating Christian symbols in
public places right across America) - but, oh dear me, nobody
must say anything that might make people dislike them !
What two faced stinking hypocrites these hate filled Christ murdering,
Palestinian murdering reptiles are !
The only one of the troop of people turned out in the Daily
Mail smokescreen exercise who made any honest or sensible
comment at all, was the pretty young English vicar (a young lady)
who said "Easter is not about fluffy bunnies and Easter eggs".
Now I wonder who it is that has tried to tell us that it is, whilst
burying the real story of Easter, to the point that most children
don't have the faintest idea why they are now on holiday from
school ?
All I can say, Bob, is that Mel Gibson apparently doesn't agree with you on
the subject of anti-Semitism and neither, come to that, does the Pope.

There's quite an interesting article on Gibson's views at

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/passion-passionofmel.html

Not having seen the film I can't really comment on how it portrays the
Passion and Crucifixion but Gibson's comments in the article are pretty much
in line with mainstream Catholic understanding of the events.

Steve
Wotan
2004-03-02 16:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
All I can say, Bob, is that Mel Gibson apparently doesn't agree with you on
the subject of anti-Semitism and neither, come to that, does the Pope.
Niether of them are going to stand up in public and say
"the Jews murdered Christ and I detest the slimy bastards",
now are they ?

Especially Gibson, who is not going to get his film distributed
anywhere if he upsets the Jews who control all the media (and
all of the politics).

And what do you think "anti-semitism" is supposed to mean ?

I do not hate Arabs, but I do destest the Jews who are still
slaughering the Palestinians today.

I am not aware of any law that says I must not detest, for
example, the French; so who the hell do the Jews think they are
to say that I must not detest them, or at least not say so in
public ? And who collaborated with them in this subversion
of our free speech ?

Are they all called "Judas" - or do they go by other names ?

And how exactly did they manage to insinuate this insolence
into the legislation of so many of their host countries ?
Harry Crun
2004-03-02 17:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
I am not aware of any law that says I must not detest, for
example, the French; so who the hell do the Jews think they are
to say that I must not detest them, or at least not say so in
public ? And who collaborated with them in this subversion
of our free speech ?
Are they all called "Judas" - or do they go by other names ?
The name "Judas" was most likely an invention of the author/editors of the
gospels. It symbolises "Judah", and therefore casts Judaism, which the new
"Christian" movement was battling at the time, in a bad light.

Harry C (not Henry Crun)
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 17:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Crun
Post by Wotan
I am not aware of any law that says I must not detest, for
example, the French; so who the hell do the Jews think they are
to say that I must not detest them, or at least not say so in
public ? And who collaborated with them in this subversion
of our free speech ?
Are they all called "Judas" - or do they go by other names ?
The name "Judas" was most likely an invention of the author/editors of the
gospels. It symbolises "Judah", and therefore casts Judaism, which the new
"Christian" movement was battling at the time, in a bad light.
Which rather reinforces the message about the Jews.
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Fed Up
2004-03-02 19:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Crun
Post by Wotan
I am not aware of any law that says I must not detest, for
example, the French; so who the hell do the Jews think they are
to say that I must not detest them, or at least not say so in
public ? And who collaborated with them in this subversion
of our free speech ?
Are they all called "Judas" - or do they go by other names ?
The name "Judas" was most likely an invention of the author/editors of the
gospels.
Where's your proof for this?
Post by Harry Crun
It symbolises "Judah", and therefore casts Judaism, which the new
"Christian" movement was battling at the time, in a bad light.
Christians consider Jews as children of God also.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Harry Crun
2004-03-02 23:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Post by Harry Crun
Post by Wotan
I am not aware of any law that says I must not detest, for
example, the French; so who the hell do the Jews think they are
to say that I must not detest them, or at least not say so in
public ? And who collaborated with them in this subversion
of our free speech ?
Are they all called "Judas" - or do they go by other names ?
The name "Judas" was most likely an invention of the author/editors of the
gospels.
Where's your proof for this?
Proof! Hah! The truth is we have so little good evidence about what really
happened in the first decades of the movement which became Christianity.
Clearly people were attracted to whatever Jesus actually taught, to the
extent that the pharisees and/or the priesthood attempted to purge the
movement. (Paul was a pharisee engaged on such an activity, by his own
admission). Then the temple was destroyed in 70 CE and the old religion was
destroyed. Perhaps the priesthood were all killed by the Romans, who knows.
But then internal evidence from the gospels shows that the Jesus movement
was in conflict with the pharisees (who were to become the rabbis as Judaism
evolved). The leaders of the newly formed Christian movement obviously felt
it necessary to produce "text books" to teach from, so they commissioned the
gospels. But these were not histories, they were evangelistic texts, and
very cleverly written to draw on the ancient Hebrew books and more recent
religious ideas such as a redemptive messiah and an apocalypse. Why were
there 12 disciples? Almost certainly, fitting in with all the other
symbology, because they matched the 12 tribes of Israel. Were there really
12? We'll never know, but you can't rely on the gospels for historical
facts -- Jewish culture had a completely different tradition (from the
Greeks, say) in which invention was accepted.

Read "Surpassing Wonder" by Akenson.

Harry C.
Wotan
2004-03-02 20:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Crun
Post by Wotan
I am not aware of any law that says I must not detest, for
example, the French; so who the hell do the Jews think they are
to say that I must not detest them, or at least not say so in
public ? And who collaborated with them in this subversion
of our free speech ?
Are they all called "Judas" - or do they go by other names ?
The name "Judas" was most likely an invention of the author/editors of the
gospels. It symbolises "Judah", and therefore casts Judaism, which the new
"Christian" movement was battling at the time, in a bad light.
Harry C (not Henry Crun)
Pity. I LIKED Henry Crun. He was one of my favourites and
I have a Cambridge pal who can do him ( and just about every
other Goon) to perfection.

No offence intended. It was just a joke. :o)
Harry Crun
2004-03-02 23:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Pity. I LIKED Henry Crun. He was one of my favourites and
I have a Cambridge pal who can do him ( and just about every
other Goon) to perfection.
No offence intended. It was just a joke. :o)
Oh dear, emoticons used to be frowned upon in the good old days of scb. O
tempura, O morris!

Sad to say, my uncle Henry and aunt Minnie perished, as she was wont to
predict, by being murdered in their beds.

Harry C.
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 18:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
All I can say, Bob, is that Mel Gibson apparently doesn't agree with
you on
Post by Stephen Glynn
the subject of anti-Semitism and neither, come to that, does the
Pope.
Niether of them are going to stand up in public and say
"the Jews murdered Christ and I detest the slimy bastards",
now are they ?
<snip>

Probably not. I doubt either of them are likely to stand up in public and
say the moon is made of green cheese or that pigs can fly either.

Steve
Alan Hope
2004-03-02 14:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
I was recently in a CofE church (I am a Methodist) and found myself
trying to sing a hymn I have known by heart since childhood, without
having the faintest idea what the (new trendy) words were supposed
to mean - or how to handle the idiotically "modern" music to which
they had been set.
If this hymn had new words, and new music, neither of which were
familiar to you, in what sense was it one you had known since
childhood?

Could it be you'd never heard this hymn before at all, which led you
to think someone had changed the words and music of an old favourite?
--
AH
Gaz
2004-03-02 10:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
in
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
Sort of like the Gospels were written from different perspectives, as one
would expect.
Well, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation my RC
lot use, "The gospels are not 'lives' or biographies of Jesus, but are four
versions of the record of the Good News brought by Jesus". They're not
supposed to be an historical record.
But that misses the point. The important thing in this context is how you
interpret them. I've not seen the film but if it actually does try to
make an anti-Semitic point (something Mel Gibson strenuously denies, btw,
and his account of what he thinks it's about is pretty close to my
understanding of the Passion) or if someone interprets it to justify
anti-Semitism then that's way out of line with most contemporary Christian,
and certainly most contemporary Catholic, interpretations of the Passion.
Steve
It is not anti-semetic to point out that the bible claims:

a) That the Jews killed Jesus
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.

Gaz
cmw
2004-03-02 10:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
a) That the Jews killed Jesus
Woah woah woah!! Hate to point this out Gaz but it was actually the Romans!
Post by Gaz
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Ummm point me to that bit of the scripture again....
Benedict White
2004-03-02 10:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by cmw
Post by Gaz
a) That the Jews killed Jesus
Woah woah woah!! Hate to point this out Gaz but it was actually the Romans!
With prompting from some Jews. It should be pointed out that Jews play large
parts in the Gospels both as good guys and bad guys. To assume that all of one
group are good or bad is naive.
Post by cmw
Post by Gaz
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Ummm point me to that bit of the scripture again....
Yes, I would like a reference for that as well.

Kind regards

--
Benedict White
Wotan
2004-03-02 16:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Post by Gaz
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Ummm point me to that bit of the scripture again....
Yes, I would like a reference for that as well.
Will this do ? (This IS in my original post, qv)

from John Chapters 17 & 18

"Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man !

When the chief priest therefore and officers saw him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Pilate saith unto them, take ye him, and crucify him:
for I find no fault in him."

And again...

"And from thence forth Pilate sought to release him:
but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar's friend: Whosoever maketh
himself a king speaketh against Caesar."

And again...

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your
King !

But they cried out, Away with him, away with him,
crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify
your King ? The chief priests answered, We have
no king but Caesar."

And here is part of the account of Matthew of the
same murder....

Matthew Ch 27 v 24 & 25

"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his
hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the
the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Then answered all the people (Jews) and said,
HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN."

If that's not murder, then tell me what is ?!
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 16:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Post by Gaz
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of
Jesus.
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Ummm point me to that bit of the scripture again....
Yes, I would like a reference for that as well.
Will this do ? (This IS in my original post, qv)
from John Chapters 17 & 18
"Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man !
When the chief priest therefore and officers saw him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
for I find no fault in him."
And again...
but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar's friend: Whosoever maketh
himself a king speaketh against Caesar."
And again...
"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your
King !
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him,
crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify
your King ? The chief priests answered, We have
no king but Caesar."
And here is part of the account of Matthew of the
same murder....
Matthew Ch 27 v 24 & 25
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his
hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the
the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people (Jews) and said,
HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN."
If that's not murder, then tell me what is ?!
Would this be the same mob that welcomed JC when he was riding that donkey
etc?
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Benedict White
2004-03-02 16:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Then answered all the people (Jews) and said,
HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN."
If that's not murder, then tell me what is ?!
I think you are missing a vital point here.

Jews were both the good guys and the bad guys.

You also have not said where in scripture it says or justifies the
following statement: "All existing and future Jews are responsible for the
death of Jesus."

Kind regards

--
Benedict White
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benedict White
Post by Wotan
Then answered all the people (Jews) and said,
HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN."
If that's not murder, then tell me what is ?!
I think you are missing a vital point here.
Jews were both the good guys and the bad guys.
You also have not said where in scripture it says or justifies the
following statement: "All existing and future Jews are responsible for the
death of Jesus."
Kind regards
--
Benedict White
Hmm. I don't know where you got that from, but it wasn't me.

But here (again) its the scriptural basis for that claim.

Matthew Ch 27 v 24 & 25

"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his
hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the
the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Then answered all the people (Jews) and said,
HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN."

How many times to do I have to post this ?

Notwithstanding, I have always said here in these newsgroups
that no group of people is always any one thing (good or bad)
all of the time.
Fed Up
2004-03-02 19:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Post by Gaz
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of
Jesus.
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Ummm point me to that bit of the scripture again....
Yes, I would like a reference for that as well.
Will this do ? (This IS in my original post, qv)
<snip>
I think this is rather relevant:

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary,
there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and
the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they
know not what they do.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary,
there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and
the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they
know not what they do.
Yes, it is quite probable that the mindless and manipulated mob
who ( as someone has pointed out in this thread ) cheered
Jesus arriving on a donkey were ( in all probability ) at least
part of the same mob who were manipulated into calling for
his crucifixion.

Or, maybe, not.

But Christ, of course, even in his agony, was genius enough
to understand that - and God enough to forgive it !
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 20:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaz
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Post by Gaz
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of
Jesus.
Post by Benedict White
Post by cmw
Ummm point me to that bit of the scripture again....
Yes, I would like a reference for that as well.
Will this do ? (This IS in my original post, qv)
from John Chapters 17 & 18
"Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man !
When the chief priest therefore and officers saw him,
they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
for I find no fault in him."
And again...
but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go,
thou art not Caesar's friend: Whosoever maketh
himself a king speaketh against Caesar."
And again...
"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your
King !
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him,
crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify
your King ? The chief priests answered, We have
no king but Caesar."
And here is part of the account of Matthew of the
same murder....
Matthew Ch 27 v 24 & 25
"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that
rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his
hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the
the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people (Jews) and said,
HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN."
If that's not murder, then tell me what is ?!
But that's part of the whole thing. A harassed civil servant washed his
hands of the whole matter in the face of a mob, thus condemning an innocent
man who was also the Son of God (as are we all) to a painful and humiliating
death. Jesus's death on the cross was necessary to redeem all of us -- you,
me, Pilate, the mob, my late wife and everyone.

Steve
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 12:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
in
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as
the
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
Sort of like the Gospels were written from different perspectives, as
one
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Tarver Engineering
would expect.
Well, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation my RC
lot use, "The gospels are not 'lives' or biographies of Jesus, but are
four
Post by Stephen Glynn
versions of the record of the Good News brought by Jesus". They're not
supposed to be an historical record.
But that misses the point. The important thing in this context is how
you
Post by Stephen Glynn
interpret them. I've not seen the film but if it actually does try to
make an anti-Semitic point (something Mel Gibson strenuously denies, btw,
and his account of what he thinks it's about is pretty close to my
understanding of the Passion) or if someone interprets it to justify
anti-Semitism then that's way out of line with most contemporary
Christian,
Post by Stephen Glynn
and certainly most contemporary Catholic, interpretations of the Passion.
Steve
a) That the Jews killed Jesus
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Gaz
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains an account
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil authorities
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that would be the
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would have been a
Chinese mob.

Steve
Benedict White
2004-03-02 13:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains an account
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil authorities
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that would be the
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would have been a
Chinese mob.
Or indeed in Wales, where it would be a mob who did not know the difference
between paediatrician and pedophile.

kind regards


--
Benedict White
Wotan
2004-03-02 16:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benedict White
Post by Stephen Glynn
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains an account
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil authorities
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that would be the
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would have been a
Chinese mob.
Or indeed in Wales, where it would be a mob who did not know the difference
between paediatrician and pedophile.
Do you do a lot of smoke screening for The Devil, or is
it just a part time hobby ?
Benedict White
2004-03-02 17:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Benedict White
Post by Stephen Glynn
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains
an account
Post by Benedict White
Post by Stephen Glynn
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil
authorities
Post by Benedict White
Post by Stephen Glynn
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that
would be the
Post by Benedict White
Post by Stephen Glynn
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would
have been a
Post by Benedict White
Post by Stephen Glynn
Chinese mob.
Or indeed in Wales, where it would be a mob who did not know the
difference
Post by Benedict White
between paediatrician and pedophile.
Do you do a lot of smoke screening for The Devil, or is
it just a part time hobby ?
Neither.

A mob is a mob. Its members religious beliefs are irrelevant it is still
a mob.

To assume a Welsh mob would not have done the same is stupid. The guilt
is collective on all sinners.

Kind regards

--
Benedict White
Wotan
2004-03-02 16:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains an account
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil
authorities
Post by Stephen Glynn
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that would be the
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would have been a
Chinese mob.
You are clutching at straws.

So far as "where does it claim that" goes - it is contained in the
original text from the New Testament, posted at the top of this
thread, and I have made extracts and reposted them (above)
in reply to (probably) you.
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 17:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Stephen Glynn
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains an
account
Post by Stephen Glynn
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil
authorities
Post by Stephen Glynn
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that would
be the
Post by Stephen Glynn
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would
have been a
Post by Stephen Glynn
Chinese mob.
You are clutching at straws.
So far as "where does it claim that" goes - it is contained in the
original text from the New Testament, posted at the top of this
thread, and I have made extracts and reposted them (above)
in reply to (probably) you.
Yes, Bob, I realise that.

I am only drawing attention to the pretty obvious fact that since Jesus was
crucified in Jerusalem the mob baying for His blood were unlikely to be
Vikings or Red Indians.

Steve
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Wotan
Post by Stephen Glynn
But where does it claim that. Gaz? The Bible certainly contains an
account
Post by Stephen Glynn
of a mob baying for the blood of an innocent man and the civil
authorities
Post by Stephen Glynn
quite literally washing their hands of the matter. But that would
be the
Post by Stephen Glynn
case had the events taken place in China, in which case it would
have been a
Post by Stephen Glynn
Chinese mob.
You are clutching at straws.
So far as "where does it claim that" goes - it is contained in the
original text from the New Testament, posted at the top of this
thread, and I have made extracts and reposted them (above)
in reply to (probably) you.
Yes, Bob, I realise that.
I am only drawing attention to the pretty obvious fact that since Jesus was
crucified in Jerusalem the mob baying for His blood were unlikely to be
Vikings or Red Indians.
Steve
Sorry ! I misunderstood the direction of your thrust.
Alan Hope
2004-03-03 00:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
So far as "where does it claim that" goes - it is contained in the
original text from the New Testament, posted at the top of this
thread, and I have made extracts and reposted them (above)
in reply to (probably) you.
Ahem. Special pleading. You introduce the NT as an authoritative
source for the condemnation of the Jews. Well duh. The books of the NT
were written precisely as part of a propaganda campaign to push the
new religion.

But look who I'm talking to -- a man who thinks the four Gospels are
"eye-witness accounts". That's a mistake in the first rank of utter
stupidity. None of them is an account written by a witness, okay? All
scholars agree that the original Gospel, that of Matthew, post-dates
the death and "resurrection" by at least a lifetime. All of them.
There's simply nobody, Bob, who thinks Matthew saw what he was writing
about.

The whole of the Gospels falls under the heading of "spin".

Now why would anyone believe it? Do you believe spin, knowing in
advance it's spin? I tend to take a very critical view. Don't you?
--
AH
Fed Up
2004-03-02 19:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
in
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as
the
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Tarver Engineering
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
Sort of like the Gospels were written from different perspectives, as
one
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Tarver Engineering
would expect.
Well, according to the New Jerusalem Bible, which is the translation my RC
lot use, "The gospels are not 'lives' or biographies of Jesus, but are
four
Post by Stephen Glynn
versions of the record of the Good News brought by Jesus". They're not
supposed to be an historical record.
But that misses the point. The important thing in this context is how
you
Post by Stephen Glynn
interpret them. I've not seen the film but if it actually does try to
make an anti-Semitic point (something Mel Gibson strenuously denies, btw,
and his account of what he thinks it's about is pretty close to my
understanding of the Passion) or if someone interprets it to justify
anti-Semitism then that's way out of line with most contemporary
Christian,
Post by Stephen Glynn
and certainly most contemporary Catholic, interpretations of the Passion.
Steve
a) That the Jews killed Jesus
Mankind did.
Post by Stephen Glynn
b) All existing and future Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Heard of the 12 (Jewish) apostles?

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Post by Gaz
a) That the Jews killed Jesus
Mankind did.
Oh not we bloody well did not ! The Jews did.
Chris X
2004-03-02 21:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Fed Up
Post by Gaz
a) That the Jews killed Jesus
Mankind did.
Oh not we bloody well did not ! The Jews did.
LOL ! A work of art :) !
Fed Up
2004-03-01 18:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteM
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
The four gospels disagree with one another on many points. For example
John's narrative of Jesus' mission is totally different from the
descriptions in the synoptics.
The 4 gospels all agree that Christ came to die for sinners, which makes
that everybody.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider's main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Harry Crun
2004-03-01 23:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
The 4 gospels all agree that Christ came to die for sinners, which makes
that everybody.
Pary line, innit?

Harry C.
Wotan
2004-03-02 16:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Crun
Post by Fed Up
The 4 gospels all agree that Christ came to die for sinners, which makes
that everybody.
Pary line, innit?
Harry C.
It's "Henry Crun", not Harry - and his wife's called Minnie ! :o)
Jez
2004-03-01 12:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
Well, all of the Gospel accounts differ.
Ever bothered to read it ?
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Fed Up
2004-03-01 18:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Fed Up
Post by Matthew Robb
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
Which part's flawed?
Well, all of the Gospel accounts differ.
Really? Might that just have something to do with being from different
authors?
Post by Jez
Ever bothered to read it ?
You tell me, Mr Know-it-all.

--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
Wotan
2004-02-29 23:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
---------------
The Holy Bible.
Translated out of the orginal tounges and with the former
translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's
special command.
The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 18
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as the
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
cheers
matt
Who says its flawed ? Apart from those with a vested interest
in pretending that they have another and more accuate version
of events ?

Four separate witnesses. Four separate accounts.

They may differ in their view point and emphasis - but then
so would any four accounts by any four people of any
event - unless they had got together and agreed an "official"
version between themselves before "going to print".

The honesty and accuracy of the Testaments is demonstrated
exactly because the accounts differ in emphasis and detail -
but not in their relation of the central events.

( I did check the Matthew version before deciding to use
the John version. )
Matthew Robb
2004-03-01 07:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Who says its flawed ? Apart from those with a vested interest
in pretending that they have another and more accuate version
of events ?
Four separate witnesses. Four separate accounts.
They may differ in their view point and emphasis - but then
so would any four accounts by any four people of any
event - unless they had got together and agreed an "official"
version between themselves before "going to print".
The honesty and accuracy of the Testaments is demonstrated
exactly because the accounts differ in emphasis and detail -
but not in their relation of the central events.
I'd say the day that Jesus did was a pretty central fact to get wrong.
Esp. as John has clearly changed the day for deliberate symbolic
reasons (e.g. to make jesus a passover sacrifice)

cheers

matt
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-01 11:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
---------------
The Holy Bible.
Translated out of the orginal tounges and with the former
translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's
special command.
The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 18
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as
the
Post by Matthew Robb
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
cheers
matt
Who says its flawed ? Apart from those with a vested interest
in pretending that they have another and more accuate version
of events ?
Four separate witnesses. Four separate accounts.
They may differ in their view point and emphasis - but then
so would any four accounts by any four people of any
event - unless they had got together and agreed an "official"
version between themselves before "going to print".
The honesty and accuracy of the Testaments is demonstrated
exactly because the accounts differ in emphasis and detail -
but not in their relation of the central events.
( I did check the Matthew version before deciding to use
the John version. )
Serious point here, Bob -- I am a Roman Catholic (admittedly not a very good
one) , and I hope you'll respect that this means I have to take Scriptural
authority very seriously indeed. Certainly the New Jerusalem Bible, which
is the translation most of us RCs use and which is also regarded by most
non-Catholic and even non-Chistian scholars as a very serious work of
historical textual criticism (in the sense that most Shakespearean scholars
regard the Arden editions as pretty definitative), doesn't think the Gospels
are eye-witness accounts and I'm not aware of any serious scholars who do
think they're eye-witness accounts.

Some people clearly do think they're eye-witness accounts but they're
usually the same people who think Genesis contains a scientific account of
the Creation of the universe.

Steve
Wotan
2004-03-01 19:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Serious point here, Bob -- I am a Roman Catholic (admittedly not a very good
one) , and I hope you'll respect that this means I have to take Scriptural
authority very seriously indeed. Certainly the New Jerusalem Bible, which
is the translation most of us RCs use and which is also regarded by most
non-Catholic and even non-Chistian scholars as a very serious work of
historical textual criticism (in the sense that most Shakespearean scholars
regard the Arden editions as pretty definitative), doesn't think the Gospels
are eye-witness accounts and I'm not aware of any serious scholars who do
think they're eye-witness accounts.
Some people clearly do think they're eye-witness accounts but
they're
Post by Stephen Glynn
usually the same people who think Genesis contains a scientific account of
the Creation of the universe.
Steve
You have a right to your beliefs, Steve, and I am not going to
take you to task over them.

But all none Catholic Christians (including scholars) believe that
the Gospels are eye witness accounts. It is CENTRAL to the
Christain faith and belief. Which is why sly revisionist are so
keen to discredit them with phoney science.

Contrarywise, I can never understand how Catholics can justify
their worship of idols in the light of the commandment...

"Thou shalt make no graven image of anything that is in heaven
above, or the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.

Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them...."

And again, at Exodus 20, v 23

"Ye shall not make with ME (my emphasis) gods of silver,
neither shall yea make unto yourselves gods of gold."

I have never checked - but does your version of the Bible
omit this commandment ?

One of my own most often quoted paragraphs in the
same book is:

Exodus 20, v 24 through v 26

"An alter of earth thou shalt make unto me, .....
...And if thou wilt make me an alter of stone, thou shalt not
build it of hewn stone: for it thou lift up thy tool upon it
thou has polluted it."

Neither shall thou go up by steps unto mine alter, that
thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."

To me, as a Methodist, this is the central statement of
Christian modesty and the denial of all the vain glorious
pomp of the Catholic (and, indeed, Anglican) church.

But I am not going to argue about you with it.

If you are a Christian, as you say you are, then I expect you
to be about the Pilgrim's work - and a fellow warrior and
comrade in our constant battle against the evil and deceit
of the world, and the abomination that rules the world.


Wotan
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 10:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Serious point here, Bob -- I am a Roman Catholic (admittedly not a
very good
Post by Stephen Glynn
one) , and I hope you'll respect that this means I have to take
Scriptural
Post by Stephen Glynn
authority very seriously indeed. Certainly the New Jerusalem
Bible, which
Post by Stephen Glynn
is the translation most of us RCs use and which is also regarded by
most
Post by Stephen Glynn
non-Catholic and even non-Chistian scholars as a very serious work
of
Post by Stephen Glynn
historical textual criticism (in the sense that most Shakespearean
scholars
Post by Stephen Glynn
regard the Arden editions as pretty definitative), doesn't think the
Gospels
Post by Stephen Glynn
are eye-witness accounts and I'm not aware of any serious scholars
who do
Post by Stephen Glynn
think they're eye-witness accounts.
Some people clearly do think they're eye-witness accounts but
they're
Post by Stephen Glynn
usually the same people who think Genesis contains a scientific
account of
Post by Stephen Glynn
the Creation of the universe.
Steve
You have a right to your beliefs, Steve, and I am not going to
take you to task over them.
But all none Catholic Christians (including scholars) believe that
the Gospels are eye witness accounts. It is CENTRAL to the
Christain faith and belief. Which is why sly revisionist are so
keen to discredit them with phoney science.
Contrarywise, I can never understand how Catholics can justify
their worship of idols in the light of the commandment...
"Thou shalt make no graven image of anything that is in heaven
above, or the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them...."
And again, at Exodus 20, v 23
"Ye shall not make with ME (my emphasis) gods of silver,
neither shall yea make unto yourselves gods of gold."
I have never checked - but does your version of the Bible
omit this commandment ?
One of my own most often quoted paragraphs in the
Exodus 20, v 24 through v 26
"An alter of earth thou shalt make unto me, .....
...And if thou wilt make me an alter of stone, thou shalt not
build it of hewn stone: for it thou lift up thy tool upon it
thou has polluted it."
Neither shall thou go up by steps unto mine alter, that
thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."
To me, as a Methodist, this is the central statement of
Christian modesty and the denial of all the vain glorious
pomp of the Catholic (and, indeed, Anglican) church.
But I am not going to argue about you with it.
If you are a Christian, as you say you are, then I expect you
to be about the Pilgrim's work - and a fellow warrior and
comrade in our constant battle against the evil and deceit
of the world, and the abomination that rules the world.
Wotan
Bob, a moment's thought would tell you that the Gospels can't possibly be
"eye-witness accounts". Which, for example, of the Evangelists do you say
was present at the Annunciation or the Birth? And the only possible
eye-witness to the Temptation is Satan, for God's sake! We're
specifically told that none of the Evangelists was around at the
Resurrection. That was witnessed by the women.

Steve
Wotan
2004-03-02 16:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Serious point here, Bob -- I am a Roman Catholic (admittedly not a
very good
Post by Stephen Glynn
one) , and I hope you'll respect that this means I have to take
Scriptural
Post by Stephen Glynn
authority very seriously indeed. Certainly the New Jerusalem
Bible, which
Post by Stephen Glynn
is the translation most of us RCs use and which is also regarded by
most
Post by Stephen Glynn
non-Catholic and even non-Chistian scholars as a very serious work
of
Post by Stephen Glynn
historical textual criticism (in the sense that most
Shakespearean
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
scholars
Post by Stephen Glynn
regard the Arden editions as pretty definitative), doesn't think the
Gospels
Post by Stephen Glynn
are eye-witness accounts and I'm not aware of any serious
scholars
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
who do
Post by Stephen Glynn
think they're eye-witness accounts.
Some people clearly do think they're eye-witness accounts but
they're
Post by Stephen Glynn
usually the same people who think Genesis contains a scientific
account of
Post by Stephen Glynn
the Creation of the universe.
Steve
You have a right to your beliefs, Steve, and I am not going to
take you to task over them.
But all none Catholic Christians (including scholars) believe that
the Gospels are eye witness accounts. It is CENTRAL to the
Christain faith and belief. Which is why sly revisionist are so
keen to discredit them with phoney science.
Contrarywise, I can never understand how Catholics can justify
their worship of idols in the light of the commandment...
"Thou shalt make no graven image of anything that is in heaven
above, or the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them...."
And again, at Exodus 20, v 23
"Ye shall not make with ME (my emphasis) gods of silver,
neither shall yea make unto yourselves gods of gold."
I have never checked - but does your version of the Bible
omit this commandment ?
One of my own most often quoted paragraphs in the
Exodus 20, v 24 through v 26
"An alter of earth thou shalt make unto me, .....
...And if thou wilt make me an alter of stone, thou shalt not
build it of hewn stone: for it thou lift up thy tool upon it
thou has polluted it."
Neither shall thou go up by steps unto mine alter, that
thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."
To me, as a Methodist, this is the central statement of
Christian modesty and the denial of all the vain glorious
pomp of the Catholic (and, indeed, Anglican) church.
But I am not going to argue about you with it.
If you are a Christian, as you say you are, then I expect you
to be about the Pilgrim's work - and a fellow warrior and
comrade in our constant battle against the evil and deceit
of the world, and the abomination that rules the world.
Wotan
Bob, a moment's thought would tell you that the Gospels can't
possibly be
Post by Stephen Glynn
"eye-witness accounts". Which, for example, of the Evangelists do you say
was present at the Annunciation or the Birth? And the only
possible
Post by Stephen Glynn
eye-witness to the Temptation is Satan, for God's sake! We're
specifically told that none of the Evangelists was around at the
Resurrection. That was witnessed by the women.
Steve
Dear Heaven ! We are talking about the Crucifixion - and
they were all there !

I know that it is popular with Christians (IE, Protestants) to say
that Catholics are the disciples of Satan - but are you trying to
prove the point ?!

I suggest you walk out the other end of your church - and get
back to Christ and Christianity.

Satan often comes in the form of a monk. Just take another
look at Blair, for example !
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 17:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Serious point here, Bob -- I am a Roman Catholic (admittedly not
a
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
very good
Post by Stephen Glynn
one) , and I hope you'll respect that this means I have to take
Scriptural
Post by Stephen Glynn
authority very seriously indeed. Certainly the New Jerusalem
Bible, which
Post by Stephen Glynn
is the translation most of us RCs use and which is also regarded
by
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
most
Post by Stephen Glynn
non-Catholic and even non-Chistian scholars as a very serious
work
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
of
Post by Stephen Glynn
historical textual criticism (in the sense that most
Shakespearean
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
scholars
Post by Stephen Glynn
regard the Arden editions as pretty definitative), doesn't think
the
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Gospels
Post by Stephen Glynn
are eye-witness accounts and I'm not aware of any serious
scholars
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
who do
Post by Stephen Glynn
think they're eye-witness accounts.
Some people clearly do think they're eye-witness accounts but
they're
Post by Stephen Glynn
usually the same people who think Genesis contains a scientific
account of
Post by Stephen Glynn
the Creation of the universe.
Steve
You have a right to your beliefs, Steve, and I am not going to
take you to task over them.
But all none Catholic Christians (including scholars) believe that
the Gospels are eye witness accounts. It is CENTRAL to the
Christain faith and belief. Which is why sly revisionist are so
keen to discredit them with phoney science.
Contrarywise, I can never understand how Catholics can justify
their worship of idols in the light of the commandment...
"Thou shalt make no graven image of anything that is in heaven
above, or the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them...."
And again, at Exodus 20, v 23
"Ye shall not make with ME (my emphasis) gods of silver,
neither shall yea make unto yourselves gods of gold."
I have never checked - but does your version of the Bible
omit this commandment ?
One of my own most often quoted paragraphs in the
Exodus 20, v 24 through v 26
"An alter of earth thou shalt make unto me, .....
...And if thou wilt make me an alter of stone, thou shalt not
build it of hewn stone: for it thou lift up thy tool upon it
thou has polluted it."
Neither shall thou go up by steps unto mine alter, that
thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."
To me, as a Methodist, this is the central statement of
Christian modesty and the denial of all the vain glorious
pomp of the Catholic (and, indeed, Anglican) church.
But I am not going to argue about you with it.
If you are a Christian, as you say you are, then I expect you
to be about the Pilgrim's work - and a fellow warrior and
comrade in our constant battle against the evil and deceit
of the world, and the abomination that rules the world.
Wotan
Bob, a moment's thought would tell you that the Gospels can't
possibly be
Post by Stephen Glynn
"eye-witness accounts". Which, for example, of the Evangelists do
you say
Post by Stephen Glynn
was present at the Annunciation or the Birth? And the only
possible
Post by Stephen Glynn
eye-witness to the Temptation is Satan, for God's sake! We're
specifically told that none of the Evangelists was around at the
Resurrection. That was witnessed by the women.
Steve
Dear Heaven ! We are talking about the Crucifixion - and
they were all there !
I know that it is popular with Christians (IE, Protestants) to say
that Catholics are the disciples of Satan - but are you trying to
prove the point ?!
I suggest you walk out the other end of your church - and get
back to Christ and Christianity.
Satan often comes in the form of a monk. Just take another
look at Blair, for example !
Bob, use the brains God gave you. Which of the Evangelists do you say was
actually an eye-witness to the Resurrection? Or which of the Evangelists
do you suggest accompanied the women to the Tomb and wrote down an
"eye-witness" account of their encounter with an indeterminate number
(depending on which Gospel you read) number of angels?

Steve
Alan Hope
2004-03-03 00:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Dear Heaven ! We are talking about the Crucifixion - and
they were all there !
Feel free to post Scriptural cites showing that Matthew, Mark and Luke
were there. John, or someone though to bear that name, seems to have
been on-site.

Perhaps you might research the provenance of the Gospels? Most
authorities seem to agree that the earliest of them, that of Matthew,
couldn't possibly have been written by anyone alive in the time of
Jesus' life.

But I dare say you know different.

Let's see it, then.
--
AH
Jez
2004-03-01 13:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
---------------
The Holy Bible.
Translated out of the orginal tounges and with the former
translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's
special command.
The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 18
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as
the
Post by Matthew Robb
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
cheers
matt
Who says its flawed ? Apart from those with a vested interest
in pretending that they have another and more accuate version
of events ?
Well, as the 4 gospels were taken from a collection of about
80 different gospels, you'd have thought the Church Fathers
would have at least been able to choose 4 who's accounts
matched wouldn't ya ?
Post by Wotan
Four separate witnesses. Four separate accounts.
All written between 70-120 years after Jesus died....
Post by Wotan
They may differ in their view point and emphasis - but then
so would any four accounts by any four people of any
event - unless they had got together and agreed an "official"
version between themselves before "going to print".
The honesty and accuracy of the Testaments is demonstrated
exactly because the accounts differ in emphasis and detail -
but not in their relation of the central events.
But they make no mention of Jesus being married.
As Jesus was a Rabbi....at that period of history you almost HAD to
be married to be a Rabbi ! So..............
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Wotan
2004-03-01 19:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Wotan
Post by Matthew Robb
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
---------------
The Holy Bible.
Translated out of the orginal tounges and with the former
translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's
special command.
The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 18
No doubt The Passion is a faithful rendering of the Bible. But as
the
Post by Matthew Robb
Bible's clearly flawed as a historical record, who cares?
cheers
matt
Who says its flawed ? Apart from those with a vested interest
in pretending that they have another and more accuate version
of events ?
Well, as the 4 gospels were taken from a collection of about
80 different gospels, you'd have thought the Church Fathers
would have at least been able to choose 4 who's accounts
matched wouldn't ya ?
Post by Wotan
Four separate witnesses. Four separate accounts.
All written between 70-120 years after Jesus died....
Post by Wotan
They may differ in their view point and emphasis - but then
so would any four accounts by any four people of any
event - unless they had got together and agreed an "official"
version between themselves before "going to print".
The honesty and accuracy of the Testaments is demonstrated
exactly because the accounts differ in emphasis and detail -
but not in their relation of the central events.
But they make no mention of Jesus being married.
As Jesus was a Rabbi....at that period of history you almost HAD to
be married to be a Rabbi ! So..............
Jesus was NOT a Rabbi. He despised them with a loathing
that was pure - and would certainly not have become one of
their number.
cmw
2004-03-01 19:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Jez
But they make no mention of Jesus being married.
As Jesus was a Rabbi....at that period of history you almost HAD to
be married to be a Rabbi ! So..............
Jesus was NOT a Rabbi. He despised them with a loathing
that was pure - and would certainly not have become one of
their number.
I think Jez was trying to point out that Jesus is referred to as "Rabbi" at
various stages in the Bible. However, Jez, I think you will find that Rabbi
in hebrew means teacher so it is perfectly possible that he was called Rabbi
without holding that religious office. Nice try though.
Harry Crun
2004-03-01 23:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Jesus was NOT a Rabbi. He despised them with a loathing
that was pure - and would certainly not have become one of
their number.
He very likely was a pharisee originally. The pharisees almost certainly
were the forerunners of the "modern" rabbis who replaced the priesthood in
the post-temple version of Judaism. Note the reported conversation about
religion between Jesus and the pharisees -- although little is known about
this sect, apparently they had the tradition of argument and discussion that
continued in rabbinnical Juadaism.

The four gospels shed an interesting light on the growing contest between
the Jesus followers and the pharisees after the temple's destruction. The
earliest gospel shows Jesus chatting and dining quite amicably with the
pharisees, whereas in John, the last one, they are excoriated, as you say.
Clear evidence of a split that became more and more acrimonious during the
time over which the gospels were invented.

Harry C.
Wotan
2004-03-02 17:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Crun
Post by Wotan
Jesus was NOT a Rabbi. He despised them with a loathing
that was pure - and would certainly not have become one of
their number.
He very likely was a pharisee originally.
He was never an ANYTHING ! And that is his genius.

When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.

Which is why he has been my life long hero and role
model.

As indeed, he is to all real Christian - and even if sub
conciously - to the vast majority of the English people -
who have founded their law and culture on his teachings.
Jonathan Bratt
2004-03-02 17:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have infinite
power*
--
Jonathan Bratt
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 17:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Bratt
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have infinite
power*
Or, more precisely, 'nothing to lose'.
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Wotan
2004-03-02 17:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Bratt
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have infinite
power*
--
Jonathan Bratt
Wotan
2004-03-02 17:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Bratt
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have infinite
power*
--
Jonathan Bratt
I know that, by your own admission, you are a heathen
Marxist pervert ( IE: a servant of Satan and a practictioner
of depravity ) but you may be interested in this furthur
comment by Jesus. Not, of course, that there is the
remotest chance of you ever understanding it.

Any more than there is any chance of you even undertanding
Dirk's brief, but very astute and multi-faceted, reply to your
comment.

"Oh ye of little faith. Had you faith as a grain of mustard
seed you could move mountains."

Just because there are few words, it does not mean that there
are not whole libraries of meaning behind them.
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 18:19:55 UTC
Permalink
writes
Post by Jonathan Bratt
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have infinite
power*
--
Jonathan Bratt
I know that, by your own admission, you are a heathen
Marxist pervert ( IE: a servant of Satan and a practictioner
of depravity ) but you may be interested in this furthur
comment by Jesus. Not, of course, that there is the
remotest chance of you ever understanding it.
Any more than there is any chance of you even undertanding
Dirk's brief, but very astute and multi-faceted, reply to your
comment.
"Oh ye of little faith. Had you faith as a grain of mustard
seed you could move mountains."
Just because there are few words, it does not mean that there
are not whole libraries of meaning behind them.
Bob, someone simultaneously calling himself after a pagan god and lecturing
people on Christianity might be considered a bit rich, might it not?

Steve
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Bob, someone simultaneously calling himself after a pagan god and lecturing
people on Christianity might be considered a bit rich, might it not?
Steve
I wondered when somebody was going to pick up on that. :o)

Well, as a Christian pagan god, might I be permitted to give
you a mystical answer ?

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed
of in your philosophies"

Now you are certainly very far from being the slowest member
of our little community - and its not actually that hard - so I'm
sure with a very little effort you can work it out.

Oh, alright then, a bit more of a clue. As a people we reach
back far beyond recorded history. Surely you do not think
that all our good people were not Christians long before Christ
decided to pay us a visit in person ?

So what do you think good people were, say, 10,000 years
ago ? And do you think they were any the worse for not
having a name for it ? :o)
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-02 22:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Glynn
Post by Stephen Glynn
Bob, someone simultaneously calling himself after a pagan god and
lecturing
Post by Stephen Glynn
people on Christianity might be considered a bit rich, might it not?
Steve
I wondered when somebody was going to pick up on that. :o)
Well, as a Christian pagan god, might I be permitted to give
you a mystical answer ?
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed
of in your philosophies"
Now you are certainly very far from being the slowest member
of our little community - and its not actually that hard - so I'm
sure with a very little effort you can work it out.
I would refer you to The Love Song of J. Alfred Pruftrock.

"No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;"

Steve


<snip>
Jez
2004-03-02 19:16:41 UTC
Permalink
writes
Post by Jonathan Bratt
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have infinite
power*
--
Jonathan Bratt
I know that, by your own admission, you are a heathen
Marxist pervert ( IE: a servant of Satan and a practictioner
of depravity ) but you may be interested in this furthur
comment by Jesus. Not, of course, that there is the
remotest chance of you ever understanding it.
Any more than there is any chance of you even undertanding
Dirk's brief, but very astute and multi-faceted, reply to your
comment.
"Oh ye of little faith. Had you faith as a grain of mustard
seed you could move mountains."
This line seems to be a corruption,(Or a'cherry-picking') of a couple of
verses in the Gnostic gospel of
Thomas....(Coptic version) where it reads......

(Didymos Judas Thomas, supposedly Jesus' Twin brother.)

20) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what the Kingdom of
Heaven is like."
He said to them, "It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of
all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great
plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."

then

48) Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in this one
house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move Away,' and it will
move away."
and

106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the
sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will
move away."

This text is thought to originate from around 200A.D.

although it is 'assumed' that there was a greek version before the coptic.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
writes
Post by Jonathan Bratt
Post by Wotan
When you are nobody and nothing, you have infinite power.
*Psychiatric aside - subject now perceives himself to have
infinite
Post by Jez
Post by Jonathan Bratt
power*
--
Jonathan Bratt
I know that, by your own admission, you are a heathen
Marxist pervert ( IE: a servant of Satan and a practictioner
of depravity ) but you may be interested in this furthur
comment by Jesus. Not, of course, that there is the
remotest chance of you ever understanding it.
Any more than there is any chance of you even undertanding
Dirk's brief, but very astute and multi-faceted, reply to your
comment.
"Oh ye of little faith. Had you faith as a grain of mustard
seed you could move mountains."
This line seems to be a corruption,(Or a'cherry-picking') of a
couple of
Post by Jez
verses in the Gnostic gospel of
Thomas....(Coptic version) where it reads......
(Didymos Judas Thomas, supposedly Jesus' Twin brother.)
20) The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what the Kingdom of
Heaven is like."
He said to them, "It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of
all seeds. But when it falls on tilled soil, it produces a great
plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."
then
48) Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in this one
house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move Away,' and it will
move away."
and
106) Jesus said, "When you make the two one, you will become the
sons of man, and when you say, 'Mountain, move away,' it will
move away."
This text is thought to originate from around 200A.D.
although it is 'assumed' that there was a greek version before the coptic.
--
Jez
No, it is no corruption of anything. It is from the James I
authorised version. Which, so far as I am personally concerned,
is the only version.
Jez
2004-03-03 00:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Post by Jez
Post by Wotan
Any more than there is any chance of you even undertanding
Dirk's brief, but very astute and multi-faceted, reply to your
comment.
"Oh ye of little faith. Had you faith as a grain of mustard
seed you could move mountains."
This line seems to be a corruption,(Or a'cherry-picking') of a
couple of
Post by Jez
verses in the Gnostic gospel of
Thomas....(Coptic version) where it reads......
Post by Wotan
--
Jez
No, it is no corruption of anything. It is from the James I
authorised version. Which, so far as I am personally concerned,
is the only version.
Fair enough.

Yet there are so many other writings that the church deemed
un-acceptable, that were written before the Constantine era,
that one has to wonder why.

Same thing we have to when reading the media and
listening to our Governments....

Jesus seems to have believed the world was about to end
within the life-time of his disciples...

Just like many 'Prophets', some even of Jesus' own time.

Strange that even Judaism accepts the idea of a number of 'Gods',
only Christianity insisted on 'One God', until Islam turned up...

(Well, there was Akenaton,
but thats was a bit earlier!)
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Matthew Robb
2004-03-02 22:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Any more than there is any chance of you even undertanding
Dirk's brief, but very astute and multi-faceted, reply to your
comment.
"Oh ye of little faith. Had you faith as a grain of mustard
seed you could move mountains."
So you who have such faith, how come your an impotent old man railing
against the world?

Which mountains have you moved?

cheers

matt
Doreen Wotan
2004-02-29 23:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
What impudent treachery!

Having said in an earlier post that UK forces should have stayed
out of Iraq- and so let the "EU" closet dictator Saddam Hussein do his
worst with the women and children of that great country- you are now
acting as the bootlegger for the worst kinds of shit-stirrers and
arrogant parasites we have to suffer in our national media.

You know very well that the Daily Mail is owned by a Jew- managed
by a Jew- edited by a Jew- and is PROBABLY PACKED FULL TO THE RAFTERS
WITH JEWS TOO!

And I understand that you yourself are a Jew.

You are presumably unaware of the list that we are drawing up of
prominent Jews in the United Kingdom who go under the name of such
Anglicized versions as "Bob Sims". Who think they can get away with
blue murder whilst living at the expense of the British Sid, whose
names they very often steal and skulk under!

Well, you will be aware of it. Very soon, in fact.

And then we will make you answer for it- before you hang in the
Tower.
Matthew Robb
2004-03-01 07:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doreen Wotan
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
What impudent treachery!
Having said in an earlier post that UK forces should have stayed
out of Iraq- and so let the "EU" closet dictator Saddam Hussein do his
worst with the women and children of that great country- you are now
acting as the bootlegger for the worst kinds of shit-stirrers and
arrogant parasites we have to suffer in our national media.
You know very well that the Daily Mail is owned by a Jew- managed
by a Jew- edited by a Jew- and is PROBABLY PACKED FULL TO THE RAFTERS
WITH JEWS TOO!
And I understand that you yourself are a Jew.
You are presumably unaware of the list that we are drawing up of
prominent Jews in the United Kingdom who go under the name of such
Anglicized versions as "Bob Sims". Who think they can get away with
blue murder whilst living at the expense of the British Sid, whose
names they very often steal and skulk under!
Well, you will be aware of it. Very soon, in fact.
And then we will make you answer for it- before you hang in the
Tower.
Fantastic!

cheers

matt
Wotan
2004-03-01 12:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doreen Wotan
Post by Wotan
The Daily Mail has been at some pains (but not as much as
the Daily Telavivgraph, of course) to debunk and discredit
Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of Christ" - dragging up
sold out Catholic's from Cambridge university and their own
Jewish journalists to poo-poo the film.
In the Sunday Mail today, Peter Hitchens does a similar job
and suggests that people should read the orginal story in the
James 1st Authorised Version. Well, I agree, Peter. And
so here it is ! Let's see if you dare poo poo that !
(With thanks to my little daughter, who read this out as I typed.)
What impudent treachery!
Having said in an earlier post that UK forces should have stayed
out of Iraq- and so let the "EU" closet dictator Saddam Hussein do his
worst with the women and children of that great country- you are now
acting as the bootlegger for the worst kinds of shit-stirrers and
arrogant parasites we have to suffer in our national media.
You know very well that the Daily Mail is owned by a Jew-
managed
Post by Doreen Wotan
by a Jew- edited by a Jew- and is PROBABLY PACKED FULL TO THE
RAFTERS
Post by Doreen Wotan
WITH JEWS TOO!
And I understand that you yourself are a Jew.
You are presumably unaware of the list that we are drawing up of
prominent Jews in the United Kingdom who go under the name of such
Anglicized versions as "Bob Sims". Who think they can get away with
blue murder whilst living at the expense of the British Sid, whose
names they very often steal and skulk under!
Well, you will be aware of it. Very soon, in fact.
And then we will make you answer for it- before you hang in the
Tower.
You are on the verge of a mental break down.

I recommend a warm bath, a cup of Horlicks, some lavender
on the back of the neck and a good night's sleep. And keep
away from substances like; coffee, tobacco, alcohol or drugs.
Half a co-proxamol tablet dissolved in hot water may help
you to relax.

A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.

But don't use Galbanum at night, it will give you nightmares.

Hope you will soon be feeling better.
Alan Hope
2004-03-02 15:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.
I must say I'm a little surprised, not to mention disappointed, to
find someone of such normally robust and outspoken views is a secret
devotee of the namby-pamby doctrines of perfumology, or aromatherapy,
or whatever the cheesecloth classes of crystal-danglers and dousers
are calling it this phase of the moon.

Surely advice more along the lines of "Buck up and pull yourself
together" would be more appropriate to the Wotan persona? Delivered in
a ringing baritone, of course -- you'll be telling us you're a
countertenor next.
--
AH
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 15:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Wotan
A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.
I must say I'm a little surprised, not to mention disappointed, to
find someone of such normally robust and outspoken views is a secret
devotee of the namby-pamby doctrines of perfumology, or aromatherapy,
or whatever the cheesecloth classes of crystal-danglers and dousers
are calling it this phase of the moon.
I swear by DMSO
Little known here and far from being a sweet smelling placebo
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Wotan
2004-03-02 17:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I swear by DMSO
Little known here and far from being a sweet smelling placebo
What's DMSO, Dirk ? Galbanum is not a very pleasant smell
either !

Whilst we are on the subject, it might be topical for the time of
year to give you my own treatment for chest problems.

In 1 tablespoon of Sunflower oil (an old Russian treament for
chest problems) add: 1/2 teaspoon each of ess. oil of :

Benzion, Eucalyptus, Bergamot and Sandalwood.

Massage chest, back and sides and put on an old "T" shirt
to keep it off the furniture or the bed.

I AM NOT DISPENSING MEDICAL ADVICE - AND
SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE ALLERGIC REACTIONS.

THE USE OF MANY ESSENTIAL OILS IS CONTRA
INDICATED FOR PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA OR AUTO
IMMUNE DISORDERS.

NEVER PUT THEM IN THE BATH FOR CHILDREN.

ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR IF IN DOUBT.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 17:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I swear by DMSO
Little known here and far from being a sweet smelling placebo
What's DMSO, Dirk ? Galbanum is not a very pleasant smell
either !
Like the advert on TV says - it does what it says on tin (or in this case
the website).
http://www.dmso.org/articles/information/muir.htm
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Post by Wotan
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
I swear by DMSO
Little known here and far from being a sweet smelling placebo
What's DMSO, Dirk ? Galbanum is not a very pleasant smell
either !
Like the advert on TV says - it does what it says on tin (or in this case
the website).
http://www.dmso.org/articles/information/muir.htm
--
Dirk
Ah. A bit outside my orbit of interest really.
Wotan
2004-03-02 17:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Wotan
A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.
I must say I'm a little surprised, not to mention disappointed, to
find someone of such normally robust and outspoken views is a secret
devotee of the namby-pamby doctrines of perfumology, or
aromatherapy,
Post by Alan Hope
or whatever the cheesecloth classes of crystal-danglers and dousers
are calling it this phase of the moon.
Dear, dear me ! How very *modern* of you ! You know, I
am often obliged to tell people here that their weakness is not
what they have learned - but what they have forgotten.

I am a great fan of Pliny the Elder, and I am sure you would not
claim he was a "sissy" ! And even Alexander the (so-called)
Great became a devotee of essential oils, after he discovered
them in Persia ( where is was visiting on a mass murder "all
inclusive" holiday. )

Before even as recently as 1900, apart from a few rather
dangerous chemicals like "lodenum", the herbs that the "witches"
used to cure poor people who could not afford, or perhaps reach,
doctors, was pretty much all there was !

Many have been replaced by more effective synthetic or chemical
medicines (and there is nothing wrong with that) - but many, even
most, of these are still derived from the herbs in question, or are
otherwise synthesised "copies" of the chemicals involved.

"Asprin" for example, is salicilic acid. Present in the bark of
willow ( Salix ) and some other trees - and used as a pain killer
since before memory. Likewise, digitalis is present in the
foxglove.

I'm not sure what the chemical equivalent of Galbanum would
be, but I suspect it is some anti-depressant with some rather
nasty side effects. (Avoid beta blockers at all costs, if you can)

In conclusion. If you are ill - the right thing to do is to go to
the doctor. If it is some sort of mild thing you can deal with
yourself - like a cold or a dose of depression - then it may well
be wiser to avoid the doctor and not waste his time either with
things he can do nothing about.

And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
Post by Alan Hope
Surely advice more along the lines of "Buck up and pull yourself
together" would be more appropriate to the Wotan persona?
Severe depression does not always respond to such hearty
treatment - unless accompanied by some thoughtful and
reasonably sensible advice - and affording the comfort of at
least implying that you understand the misery of the sufferer
(whilst not encouraging it, of course.)

Delivered in
Post by Alan Hope
a ringing baritone, of course -- you'll be telling us you're a
countertenor next.
I am a baritone, although I used to be able to fake a tenor
for the "good bits" in some of the better hymns when I
was a boy in Wales.

Although, as you would expect, I can fake almost any voice
or accent when it suits my purpose. :o)
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 17:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Wotan
A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.
I must say I'm a little surprised, not to mention disappointed, to
find someone of such normally robust and outspoken views is a secret
devotee of the namby-pamby doctrines of perfumology, or
aromatherapy,
Post by Alan Hope
or whatever the cheesecloth classes of crystal-danglers and dousers
are calling it this phase of the moon.
Dear, dear me ! How very *modern* of you ! You know, I
am often obliged to tell people here that their weakness is not
what they have learned - but what they have forgotten.
I am a great fan of Pliny the Elder, and I am sure you would not
claim he was a "sissy" ! And even Alexander the (so-called)
Great became a devotee of essential oils, after he discovered
them in Persia ( where is was visiting on a mass murder "all
inclusive" holiday. )
Before even as recently as 1900, apart from a few rather
dangerous chemicals like "lodenum", the herbs that the "witches"
'Laudenum' - opium in alcohol.
Post by Alan Hope
used to cure poor people who could not afford, or perhaps reach,
doctors, was pretty much all there was !
Many have been replaced by more effective synthetic or chemical
medicines (and there is nothing wrong with that) - but many, even
most, of these are still derived from the herbs in question, or are
otherwise synthesised "copies" of the chemicals involved.
"Asprin" for example, is salicilic acid. Present in the bark of
willow ( Salix ) and some other trees - and used as a pain killer
since before memory. Likewise, digitalis is present in the
foxglove.
I'm not sure what the chemical equivalent of Galbanum would
be, but I suspect it is some anti-depressant with some rather
nasty side effects. (Avoid beta blockers at all costs, if you can)
In conclusion. If you are ill - the right thing to do is to go to
the doctor. If it is some sort of mild thing you can deal with
yourself - like a cold or a dose of depression - then it may well
be wiser to avoid the doctor and not waste his time either with
things he can do nothing about.
And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
It increasingly means that unless it's a useless placebo it is going to be
banned by the govt.
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Wotan
2004-03-02 17:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Post by Wotan
And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
It increasingly means that unless it's a useless placebo it is going to be
banned by the govt.
Well, the "EU" actually, Dirk.

Who are doing their best to outlaw all natural remedies,
at the behest of the large drug companies who pay their
bribes.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
2004-03-02 17:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Post by Wotan
And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
It increasingly means that unless it's a useless placebo it is going
to be
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
banned by the govt.
Well, the "EU" actually, Dirk.
Who are doing their best to outlaw all natural remedies,
at the behest of the large drug companies who pay their
bribes.
When it comes to 'banning' Europe has a lot of catching up to do.
In Paris I can legally walk into a hardware store and buy over the counter a
couple of litres of conc sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and then pop out
to purchase a flick knife. There are still shops which sell a good selection
of handguns. And although I have not checked I bet their healthfood shops
sell DMSO.
--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Post by Wotan
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Post by Wotan
And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
It increasingly means that unless it's a useless placebo it is going
to be
Post by Dirk Bruere at Neopax
banned by the govt.
Well, the "EU" actually, Dirk.
Who are doing their best to outlaw all natural remedies,
at the behest of the large drug companies who pay their
bribes.
When it comes to 'banning' Europe has a lot of catching up to do.
In Paris I can legally walk into a hardware store and buy over the counter a
couple of litres of conc sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and then pop out
to purchase a flick knife. There are still shops which sell a good selection
of handguns. And although I have not checked I bet their healthfood shops
sell DMSO.
--
Dirk
Well, yes we can do the same thing here, although its not called
concentrated hydrochloric acid, it is known by a much more
familiar name (which I will not repeat here) but you have to ask
for it.

We certainly cannot buy flick knives or handguns. I have no idea
about what you can buy so far as health food shops are concerned,
because I buy all my ess. oils by mail order from Bristol.

For now, at least.
Jez
2004-03-02 19:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wotan
I am a baritone, although I used to be able to fake a tenor
for the "good bits" in some of the better hymns when I
was a boy in Wales.
In Wales !!!

My My ! You a fellow Welshman then ??
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Wotan
2004-03-02 21:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jez
Post by Wotan
I am a baritone, although I used to be able to fake a tenor
for the "good bits" in some of the better hymns when I
was a boy in Wales.
In Wales !!!
My My ! You a fellow Welshman then ??
I was born in the Gower peninsula, of English parents, with
some Scottish descent.

You could say I was a bit of a mongrel - although as a matter
of principal I am English - there is no day passes when at some
time in my heart and mind I do not stand in some spot that I
knew as a child on and around the small farms of the Gower :o)
Alan Hope
2004-03-02 20:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Wotan
A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.
I must say I'm a little surprised, not to mention disappointed, to
find someone of such normally robust and outspoken views is a secret
devotee of the namby-pamby doctrines of perfumology, or
aromatherapy,
Post by Alan Hope
or whatever the cheesecloth classes of crystal-danglers and dousers
are calling it this phase of the moon.
Dear, dear me ! How very *modern* of you ! You know, I
am often obliged to tell people here that their weakness is not
what they have learned - but what they have forgotten.
I am a great fan of Pliny the Elder, and I am sure you would not
claim he was a "sissy" ! And even Alexander the (so-called)
Great became a devotee of essential oils, after he discovered
them in Persia ( where is was visiting on a mass murder "all
inclusive" holiday. )
How interesting. I suppose you think it's been all downhill since
Galen.
Post by Alan Hope
Before even as recently as 1900, apart from a few rather
dangerous chemicals like "lodenum",
Perhaps you mean "laudanum"?
Post by Alan Hope
the herbs that the "witches"
used to cure poor people who could not afford, or perhaps reach,
doctors, was pretty much all there was !
I'll be round in the morning for an application of leeches, and maybe
a nice tincture of eye-of-newt. Is half-ten good?

I don't suppose it's occured to you, as you sit there at your
computer, that the fact that something is as old as the hills is not
necessarily a recommendation? Perhaps I should scratch the question
with a goose-feather on a piece of parchment, and send my postillion
round with it?
Post by Alan Hope
Many have been replaced by more effective synthetic or chemical
medicines (and there is nothing wrong with that) - but many, even
most, of these are still derived from the herbs in question, or are
otherwise synthesised "copies" of the chemicals involved.
Which is a bit like saying your motor is just like a donkey, except
faster, and with wheels and an engine. I take it you drive down the
shops, do you? Instead of, say, walking eight miles to market?
Post by Alan Hope
"Asprin" for example, is salicilic acid. Present in the bark of
willow ( Salix ) and some other trees - and used as a pain killer
since before memory. Likewise, digitalis is present in the
foxglove.
Oh really. And the halogen bulbs in your lamps at home are made of
beef-tallow.
Post by Alan Hope
I'm not sure what the chemical equivalent of Galbanum would
be, but I suspect it is some anti-depressant with some rather
nasty side effects. (Avoid beta blockers at all costs, if you can)
I'm doing all right up to now.
Post by Alan Hope
In conclusion. If you are ill - the right thing to do is to go to
the doctor. If it is some sort of mild thing you can deal with
yourself - like a cold or a dose of depression - then it may well
be wiser to avoid the doctor and not waste his time either with
things he can do nothing about.
This is all a very wishy-washy way of saying "Pull yourself together,
Sir!" I shall be forced in future to filter all of your "Soon you and
your ilk will be imprisoned in the Tower awaiting the gibbet at
Tyburn!" posts through your newly-revealed sensitive side. So that
when you say, "Blair and his treasonous minions will be tried and
condemned to hang by the people of Britain," you're really meaning,
"Put a bit of Tea-tree oil on it, we'll have the political system up
and running again in no time, promise darling".
Post by Alan Hope
And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
Tell that to the man dangling on the end of the pure hemp rope.
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Surely advice more along the lines of "Buck up and pull yourself
together" would be more appropriate to the Wotan persona?
Severe depression does not always respond to such hearty
treatment - unless accompanied by some thoughtful and
reasonably sensible advice - and affording the comfort of at
least implying that you understand the misery of the sufferer
(whilst not encouraging it, of course.)
Oh my God. I suppose it's fruitless to demand that you release Wotan
from his captivity and allow him to post again? You people will
obviously stop at nothing. At least assure us he's still alive? A
photo of him holding a recent copy of the Daily Mail, maybe?
Post by Alan Hope
Delivered in
Post by Alan Hope
a ringing baritone, of course -- you'll be telling us you're a
countertenor next.
I am a baritone, although I used to be able to fake a tenor
for the "good bits" in some of the better hymns when I
was a boy in Wales.
Ah, those good old hymns. But now they've changed the music, and given
them new words. You'd hardly recognise them.
Post by Alan Hope
Although, as you would expect, I can fake almost any voice
or accent when it suits my purpose. :o)
To me that reads as: "Yes, I am a countertenor, as it happens. Your
place or mine?"

Tell the real Wotan we're thinking of him. We'll wait and see the
ransom demands before deciding if we actually want to do anything, of
course, goes without saying. He'll understand.
--
AH
Wotan
2004-03-02 22:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Wotan
A few drops of essential oil of Galbanum on a tissue has a
good "grouding" effect and may help you to get back in touch
with reality. A mixture of Galbanum, Otto of Roses and Pine
is especially effective and could well help to avert a serious
mental collapse.
I must say I'm a little surprised, not to mention disappointed, to
find someone of such normally robust and outspoken views is a secret
devotee of the namby-pamby doctrines of perfumology, or
aromatherapy,
Post by Alan Hope
or whatever the cheesecloth classes of crystal-danglers and
dousers
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
are calling it this phase of the moon.
Dear, dear me ! How very *modern* of you ! You know, I
am often obliged to tell people here that their weakness is not
what they have learned - but what they have forgotten.
I am a great fan of Pliny the Elder, and I am sure you would not
claim he was a "sissy" ! And even Alexander the (so-called)
Great became a devotee of essential oils, after he discovered
them in Persia ( where is was visiting on a mass murder "all
inclusive" holiday. )
How interesting. I suppose you think it's been all downhill since
Galen.
Now you are just being silly !
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Before even as recently as 1900, apart from a few rather
dangerous chemicals like "lodenum",
Perhaps you mean "laudanum"?
Yes, I did think of looking it up - and then thought - oh, bugger it !
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
the herbs that the "witches"
used to cure poor people who could not afford, or perhaps reach,
doctors, was pretty much all there was !
I'll be round in the morning for an application of leeches, and maybe
a nice tincture of eye-of-newt. Is half-ten good?
"A small cup of wing of bat and eye of newt" is a popular family
joke - actually invented by me - and trotted out whenever anybody
asks me for a remedy.
Post by Alan Hope
I don't suppose it's occured to you, as you sit there at your
computer, that the fact that something is as old as the hills is not
necessarily a recommendation? Perhaps I should scratch the question
with a goose-feather on a piece of parchment, and send my postillion
round with it?
If you had read the following paragraphs, you might have avoided
making that silly remark.
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Many have been replaced by more effective synthetic or chemical
medicines (and there is nothing wrong with that) - but many, even
most, of these are still derived from the herbs in question, or are
otherwise synthesised "copies" of the chemicals involved.
Which is a bit like saying your motor is just like a donkey, except
faster, and with wheels and an engine. I take it you drive down the
shops, do you? Instead of, say, walking eight miles to market?
Post by Alan Hope
"Asprin" for example, is salicilic acid. Present in the bark of
willow ( Salix ) and some other trees - and used as a pain killer
since before memory. Likewise, digitalis is present in the
foxglove.
Oh really. And the halogen bulbs in your lamps at home are made of
beef-tallow.
Post by Alan Hope
I'm not sure what the chemical equivalent of Galbanum would
be, but I suspect it is some anti-depressant with some rather
nasty side effects. (Avoid beta blockers at all costs, if you can)
I'm doing all right up to now.
Post by Alan Hope
In conclusion. If you are ill - the right thing to do is to go to
the doctor. If it is some sort of mild thing you can deal with
yourself - like a cold or a dose of depression - then it may well
be wiser to avoid the doctor and not waste his time either with
things he can do nothing about.
This is all a very wishy-washy way of saying "Pull yourself
together,
Post by Alan Hope
Sir!" I shall be forced in future to filter all of your "Soon you and
your ilk will be imprisoned in the Tower awaiting the gibbet at
Tyburn!" posts through your newly-revealed sensitive side. So that
when you say, "Blair and his treasonous minions will be tried and
condemned to hang by the people of Britain," you're really meaning,
"Put a bit of Tea-tree oil on it, we'll have the political system up
and running again in no time, promise darling".
Post by Alan Hope
And please remember that just because its "natural" does not
mean that it can't kill you !
Tell that to the man dangling on the end of the pure hemp rope.
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Surely advice more along the lines of "Buck up and pull yourself
together" would be more appropriate to the Wotan persona?
Severe depression does not always respond to such hearty
treatment - unless accompanied by some thoughtful and
reasonably sensible advice - and affording the comfort of at
least implying that you understand the misery of the sufferer
(whilst not encouraging it, of course.)
Oh my God. I suppose it's fruitless to demand that you release Wotan
from his captivity and allow him to post again? You people will
obviously stop at nothing. At least assure us he's still alive? A
photo of him holding a recent copy of the Daily Mail, maybe?
LOL.

There is a photo of me tearing up an "EU" rag, and another of
me burning one. Will that do ? :o)
Post by Alan Hope
Post by Alan Hope
Delivered in
Post by Alan Hope
a ringing baritone, of course -- you'll be telling us you're a
countertenor next.
I am a baritone, although I used to be able to fake a tenor
for the "good bits" in some of the better hymns when I
was a boy in Wales.
Ah, those good old hymns. But now they've changed the music, and given
them new words. You'd hardly recognise them.
Post by Alan Hope
Although, as you would expect, I can fake almost any voice
or accent when it suits my purpose. :o)
To me that reads as: "Yes, I am a countertenor, as it happens. Your
place or mine?"
I am twice married with three children. And I have never met
a lumber jack. :o)
Post by Alan Hope
Tell the real Wotan we're thinking of him. We'll wait and see the
ransom demands before deciding if we actually want to do anything, of
course, goes without saying. He'll understand.
--
AH
OK Alan, so you are a hard nosed "no-nonsense" sort of a cove
who does not hold with all this cultural bullshit.

And I don't think any the worse of you for that.

But people have a habit of asking the difficult question "So when
we have all been liberated and they are all behind bars - what are
you going to do then ?" And you have to be able to provide
some sort of a credible answer. I'm sure I don't need to explain
that to you ?

Perhaps a glance in the general direction of the cock-up in
Iraq at the moment, with its post war shambles, may help to
explain what I mean ?

So far as providing an answer to the general thrust of your
assault goes, perhaps I could put it like this. Not everything
old or new is bad - and not everything new or old is good -
but EVERYTHING old OR new is ALWAYS bad !

A plastic plant pot may last for years and be cheaper - but it does
not breath like a terra cotta plant pot. And it is certainly not as
attractive. And do you really think Coca Cola is better for you
or your children than Dandilion and Burdock ?

But thank your for offering to ransome me. At the moment that
is not necessary. But should the improbable event come about that
I did need a helping hand - I will need stern men like yourself
to mean it !

I wonder if you would be a stern enough man then ? When the chips
are really down ?

I like to think you would be.
Stephen Glynn
2004-03-03 00:45:43 UTC
Permalink
"Wotan" <***@Valhalla.net> wrote in message news:***@212.67.96.135...
<snip>
Post by Wotan
But people have a habit of asking the difficult question "So when
we have all been liberated and they are all behind bars - what are
you going to do then ?" And you have to be able to provide
some sort of a credible answer. I'm sure I don't need to explain
that to you ?
<snip>

Sort of question people rush up to each other in the street almost every day
and ask.

Only this morning the milkman asked me the very same question.

"Buy Bob Sims a bloody great deal of rope" was my reply.

Hope I got that one right.

Steve.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...