
Iraq is a lethal disconnection from Christian values
It's a happy or unhappy curiosity that the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq falls in the middle of what Christians term Holy Week. What it does do is provide a distinctive frame for discourse about the war, given that the two most prominent allied leaders identified with the invasion, George W Bush and Tony Blair, saw themselves as being engaged on Christian business.
Holy Week, which began yesterday, is the most significant period in the Christian year. As part of the season of Lent - traditionally a time for reflection and penitence - it commemorates the last week in the earthly existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Any significant piece of action which purports to be Christian has to pass through the filter of this terrible and glorious week, which features passion, dirty politics, corruption, betrayal, judgment, blood and gore. More tea, vicar?
For obvious reasons, followers of a man who preached the loving of enemies and turning the other cheek have had difficulties with war. In the early Christian Church, believers were forbidden to serve in the armed forces. Especially when Christianity became the official religion of the empire and came under the protection of the state, the theological agenda shifted from pacifism to questions about the circumstances under which Christians might legitimately participate in war. The evolving "just war" theory - indeed it's still evolving - laid down a number of criteria, including the rules that such a war can be waged only as a last resort, that the war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, that its violence must be proportionate to the injury suffered, and that the attackers must have legitimate public authority for their action.
The slow-motion train wreck which goes by the name of Iraq failed every theological test.
Right from the start, the lies, the hubris and the ideological blindness - not to mention the entirely predictable spiralling recruitment of terrorists - were on public display. To understand what was going on, we could do worse than turn to the prescient words of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, Reinhold Niebuhr. In his prophetic book, The Irony of American History, published in 1952, Dr Niebuhr predicted that the winner of the cold war would inevitably "face the imperial problem of using power in global terms, but from one particular centre of authority, so dominant and unchallenged that its world rule would almost certainly violate basic standards of justice". Niebuhr was afraid that if America became that dominant nation, it would not recognise its own injustices toward others.
Fast forward to March 2003. The righteous lecturing about the dangers of weapons of mass destruction, while armed with the biggest arsenal the world has ever seen, was further evidence of a lethal disconnection from Christian values. The strutting under a "Mission Accomplished" banner was as far from the Christ of Holy Week as could be imagined. George W Bush, who said that Jesus Christ was his "favourite
philosopher", talked the language
of Christ while acting like a
blood-stained Caesar.
We know about the western military casualties, but the shameful refusal to count the Iraqi dead and maimed is a stain on the reputation of the "Christian" west, recalling Dylan's words:
The names of the heroes,
I was taught to memorise.
They had guns in their hands,
And God on their side . . . For you
don't count the
dead, with God on our side.
Tony Blair was the Christian cheerleader Dubya wanted, but not the critical ally he badly needed. Their actions inflicted serious collateral damage on the Christianity they professed to represent. Instead of being charged with war crimes - surely Lothian and Borders police could spare a few bobbies from the Sheridan inquiry - Tony Blair gets paid half a million pounds a year as an adviser to US investment bank JP Morgan. Jesus wept.
Yesterday, many churches throughout the world celebrated Palm Sunday. On that first Palm Sunday, Jesus strode into Jerusalem and confronted its dirty money and its dirty politics. His subversive preaching and prophetic actions triggered an unholy alliance between "Church" and state which ended in the execution of the founder of Christianity as a public criminal. How ironic that he would eventually be co-opted as a sanitised, inoffensive chaplain of so-called Christendom by various murdering Herods and hand-washing Pilates. More waterboarding, vicar?
The Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel once said about the war in Vietnam: "How can I pray when I have on my conscience the awareness that I am co-responsible for the death of innocent people in Vietnam? In a free society, some are guilty, all are responsible."
Christian values? Time for a penitential walk through Holy Week to examine the real thing.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Posted by: tom, europe on 8:46am Mon 17 Mar 08
And Tony Blair is to lecture at Yale University on his "religious" beliefs.
And Tony Blair is to lecture at Yale University on his "religious" beliefs.
Posted by: Arthur, Glasgow on 11:11am Mon 17 Mar 08
It's been the same for the last couple of hundred years, Ron. Look at the Vatican's concordats with Napoleon in 1801, then with a series of "Christian countries", actually fascist dictatorships - Hitler's Germany in 1933, Salazar's Portugal in 1940, Franco's Spain in 1953 then with a host of Latin American dictatorships in the 1960's and 70's. Power is the operative word here and the perpetuation thereof is the name of the game with basic Christian values being lost in the process.
It's been the same for the last couple of hundred years, Ron. Look at the Vatican's concordats with Napoleon in 1801, then with a series of "Christian countries", actually fascist dictatorships - Hitler's Germany in 1933, Salazar's Portugal in 1940, Franco's Spain in 1953 then with a host of Latin American dictatorships in the 1960's and 70's. Power is the operative word here and the perpetuation thereof is the name of the game with basic Christian values being lost in the process.
Posted by: long spin, Carluke/Fife on 11:27am Mon 17 Mar 08
Your best one Rev. Question. Does our God fight for the Muslims too?
Your best one Rev. Question. Does our God fight for the Muslims too?
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 12:55pm Mon 17 Mar 08
"Christian values? Time for a penitential walk through Holy Week to examine the real thing."
Will Bishops Devine of Motherwell and Tartaglia of Paisley be on the walk as well, Ron?
"Christian values? Time for a penitential walk through Holy Week to examine the real thing."
Will Bishops Devine of Motherwell and Tartaglia of Paisley be on the walk as well, Ron?
Posted by: JAM on 5:09pm Mon 17 Mar 08
Alistair do we assume you are without fault yourself then?
Alistair do we assume you are without fault yourself then?
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 7:39pm Mon 17 Mar 08
Doesn't Ferguson know that the " followers of a man" were, and are , not just the followers of a man, but also (and considerably more importantly) the followers of God, in the person of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? Doesn't he know that it was at Antioch, long after Jesus' Death and Resurrection, that (the former Jew) created and named the religion we call Christianity?
As a writer he also appears not to believe in the necessity for attribution; in this cast, failing to attribute what readers might mistakenly believe are Ferguson's "thoughts, to the Angelic Doctor, whose "just war" theory the recently deceased Vicar of Christ came out foursquare behind, vis-a-vis Iraq.
But this article is really nothing to do with Christianity and morality. Rather, it's just another tired political polemic by just another journalist-hack , masquerading as a "man of God," giving ,what I assume is another anti-Catholic pagan like Alistair of Edinburgh, a forum to vent his spleen. Should we be surprised? Look for more of that (un)worthy's "merry band of brothers" appearing on this thread over the next few days, spewing out their hatred of the One, True Church.
Doesn't Ferguson know that the " followers of a man" were, and are , not just the followers of a man, but also (and considerably more importantly) the followers of God, in the person of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? Doesn't he know that it was at Antioch, long after Jesus' Death and Resurrection, that (the former Jew) created and named the religion we call Christianity?
As a writer he also appears not to believe in the necessity for attribution; in this cast, failing to attribute what readers might mistakenly believe are Ferguson's "thoughts, to the Angelic Doctor, whose "just war" theory the recently deceased Vicar of Christ came out foursquare behind, vis-a-vis Iraq.
But this article is really nothing to do with Christianity and morality. Rather, it's just another tired political polemic by just another journalist-hack , masquerading as a "man of God," giving ,what I assume is another anti-Catholic pagan like Alistair of Edinburgh, a forum to vent his spleen. Should we be surprised? Look for more of that (un)worthy's "merry band of brothers" appearing on this thread over the next few days, spewing out their hatred of the One, True Church.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 7:54pm Mon 17 Mar 08
I see no spewing out of hatred, would you like to point it out?
And there is no one true church.
Jesus said that wherever people gathered in His name there was his church.
I see no spewing out of hatred, would you like to point it out?
And there is no one true church.
Jesus said that wherever people gathered in His name there was his church.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 8:51pm Mon 17 Mar 08
Isn't the point of Ron Ferguson's article that wherever people gathered in his name there is not always his Church ? Blair and Bush portrayed themselves as gathering in his name. I am an atheist so it's academic to me, but of the Christians I know not one of them thought Iraq had anything to do with their beliefs, and find Bush and Blair disgusting. We are all in agreement on that.
Isn't the point of Ron Ferguson's article that wherever people gathered in his name there is not always his Church ? Blair and Bush portrayed themselves as gathering in his name. I am an atheist so it's academic to me, but of the Christians I know not one of them thought Iraq had anything to do with their beliefs, and find Bush and Blair disgusting. We are all in agreement on that.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 9:39pm Mon 17 Mar 08
It's referred to as the One, True (Catholic) Church because it is the only one instituted by Christ, the anniversary of which occurs this week. All the other religions (Islam, etc) and denominations (Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, etc.), born as they were out of hatred for what came to be called Catholicism and a hunger for power , were instituted by men, usually for financial (Henry VIII) or political reasons(the German princes). That's why there are so many of them, some of whom have the partial Truth, compared with the Catholic Church which has the Whole Truth.
Atheists and agnostics (I would guess they live such barren lives that they never feel the desire/need to ask for forgiveness--althoug
h they seem to think that politicians should repent) have none of the Truth, but a pale and partial facsimile, called secular truth. That includes the distorted and hopeless (in the real sense of that word) belief that this life is all there is, created by some inexplicable accident for no apparent reason. They are not reputed to be imbued with much optimism.
It's referred to as the One, True (Catholic) Church because it is the only one instituted by Christ, the anniversary of which occurs this week. All the other religions (Islam, etc) and denominations (Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, etc.), born as they were out of hatred for what came to be called Catholicism and a hunger for power , were instituted by men, usually for financial (Henry VIII) or political reasons(the German princes). That's why there are so many of them, some of whom have the partial Truth, compared with the Catholic Church which has the Whole Truth.
Atheists and agnostics (I would guess they live such barren lives that they never feel the desire/need to ask for forgiveness--althoug
h they seem to think that politicians should repent) have none of the Truth, but a pale and partial facsimile, called secular truth. That includes the distorted and hopeless (in the real sense of that word) belief that this life is all there is, created by some inexplicable accident for no apparent reason. They are not reputed to be imbued with much optimism.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 9:40pm Mon 17 Mar 08
It's referred to as the One, True (Catholic) Church because it is the only one instituted by Christ, the anniversary of which occurs this week. All the other religions (Islam, etc) and denominations (Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, etc.), born as they were out of hatred for what came to be called Catholicism and a hunger for power , were instituted by men, usually for financial (Henry VIII) or political reasons(the German princes). That's why there are so many of them, some of whom have the partial Truth, compared with the Catholic Church which has the Whole Truth.
Atheists and agnostics (I would guess they live such barren lives that they never feel the desire/need to ask for forgiveness--althoug
h they seem to think that politicians should repent) have none of the Truth, but a pale and partial facsimile, called secular truth. That includes the distorted and hopeless (in the real sense of that word) belief that this life is all there is, created by some inexplicable accident for no apparent reason. They are not reputed to be imbued with much optimism.
It's referred to as the One, True (Catholic) Church because it is the only one instituted by Christ, the anniversary of which occurs this week. All the other religions (Islam, etc) and denominations (Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, etc.), born as they were out of hatred for what came to be called Catholicism and a hunger for power , were instituted by men, usually for financial (Henry VIII) or political reasons(the German princes). That's why there are so many of them, some of whom have the partial Truth, compared with the Catholic Church which has the Whole Truth.
Atheists and agnostics (I would guess they live such barren lives that they never feel the desire/need to ask for forgiveness--althoug
h they seem to think that politicians should repent) have none of the Truth, but a pale and partial facsimile, called secular truth. That includes the distorted and hopeless (in the real sense of that word) belief that this life is all there is, created by some inexplicable accident for no apparent reason. They are not reputed to be imbued with much optimism.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:47pm Mon 17 Mar 08
We are imparted with the one true truth Tom that the invasion of Iraq was and is morally indefensible, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and that the people responsible should be held to account and punished. That's godlesness for you.
We are imparted with the one true truth Tom that the invasion of Iraq was and is morally indefensible, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and that the people responsible should be held to account and punished. That's godlesness for you.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:48pm Mon 17 Mar 08
And many people of faith too. Just apparently not you.
And many people of faith too. Just apparently not you.
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 10:55pm Mon 17 Mar 08
Tom, heed the words of Scotland's greatest philosopher, W Connolly Esq, from his take on Max Earhmann's Desiderata:
"Avoid people who know the answer. Keep the company of people who are trying to understand the question"
Tom, heed the words of Scotland's greatest philosopher, W Connolly Esq, from his take on Max Earhmann's Desiderata:
"Avoid people who know the answer. Keep the company of people who are trying to understand the question"
Posted by: Kadok, West End on 12:08am Tue 18 Mar 08
Tom McCall you are a bigot and a troll and I think you are drunk. Fantastic article Reverend Ferguson. If ministers preached as you have written the pews would be full.
Tom McCall you are a bigot and a troll and I think you are drunk. Fantastic article Reverend Ferguson. If ministers preached as you have written the pews would be full.
Posted by: frank mcbride, lusitania on 2:01am Tue 18 Mar 08
Tom McCall.
The destruction of the Innocent in Iraq is a crime, "crying out to Heaven, for vengence".
Tom McCall.
The destruction of the Innocent in Iraq is a crime, "crying out to Heaven, for vengence".
Posted by: fatzdomingo, Glasgow on 9:23am Tue 18 Mar 08
God must favour the Catholic Church somewhat! Otherwise there would be strident protesting voices questioning the veracity of miracles (medical or otherwise) used as a measure of Gods pleasure visited on the random Faithful. But Ron and his groupies don't go near that one, no Protestant answer for miracles, nor answer on why they seem to be visited upon members of the Timite Hourde. ( I am not aware of any non- Catholic miracles)
God must favour the Catholic Church somewhat! Otherwise there would be strident protesting voices questioning the veracity of miracles (medical or otherwise) used as a measure of Gods pleasure visited on the random Faithful. But Ron and his groupies don't go near that one, no Protestant answer for miracles, nor answer on why they seem to be visited upon members of the Timite Hourde. ( I am not aware of any non- Catholic miracles)
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 10:23am Tue 18 Mar 08
Oh have another biscuit
Posted by: brahan seer, Glasgow on 1:15pm Tue 18 Mar 08
Tom - seek counselling.
Fatz - stick to "Ain't that a shame".
Ron - gaun yersel son.
Tom - seek counselling.
Fatz - stick to "Ain't that a shame".
Ron - gaun yersel son.
Posted by: Deegs, Somerset, UK on 3:00pm Tue 18 Mar 08
Fatz: that is just displaying your ignorance. I grew up Catholic and presently go to an evangelical church, because it is the one in my home town that is by far the most heavily involved in caring for and being alongside, the homeless, needy, children, youth, etc. in that town.
I am aware of many miracles occurring in non-Catholic Christians. Please, those few of you who somehow still think there is Only One True Church- get a grip. By their fruits you will know them, yes? The only way you can seriously maintain that attitude is to steadfastly avoid looking at other Christians, for fear you should see anything good. I have spent years in various denominations and the idea that one alone has some "Whole Truth" I find risible. I have seen churches of all denominations that did, and did not, welcome the Holy Spirit.
Fatz: that is just displaying your ignorance. I grew up Catholic and presently go to an evangelical church, because it is the one in my home town that is by far the most heavily involved in caring for and being alongside, the homeless, needy, children, youth, etc. in that town.
I am aware of many miracles occurring in non-Catholic Christians. Please, those few of you who somehow still think there is Only One True Church- get a grip. By their fruits you will know them, yes? The only way you can seriously maintain that attitude is to steadfastly avoid looking at other Christians, for fear you should see anything good. I have spent years in various denominations and the idea that one alone has some "Whole Truth" I find risible. I have seen churches of all denominations that did, and did not, welcome the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Phil, Edinburgh on 9:46am Wed 19 Mar 08
"Holy Week, which began yesterday, is the most significant period in the Christian year. As part of the season of Lent - traditionally a time for reflection and penitence - it commemorates the last week in the earthly existence of Jesus of Nazareth."
I would have thought that the week leading up to the Ascension was Jesus Christ's last week on earth. Wonder where that leaves all the other "facts" underpinning this piece?
Incidentally, I don't see any condemnation of the Baathist or Islamist terrorists who'have murdered so many in Iraq. UnChristian behaviour comes naturally to them, so no point in condemning them, I suppose.
"Holy Week, which began yesterday, is the most significant period in the Christian year. As part of the season of Lent - traditionally a time for reflection and penitence - it commemorates the last week in the earthly existence of Jesus of Nazareth."
I would have thought that the week leading up to the Ascension was Jesus Christ's last week on earth. Wonder where that leaves all the other "facts" underpinning this piece?
Incidentally, I don't see any condemnation of the Baathist or Islamist terrorists who'have murdered so many in Iraq. UnChristian behaviour comes naturally to them, so no point in condemning them, I suppose.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 8:47am Thu 20 Mar 08
Phil
"I would have thought that the week leading up to the Ascension was Jesus Christ's last week on earth. Wonder where that leaves all the other "facts" underpinning this piece?"
Whether the Ascension took place one day or 40 days after the Resurrection depends on which version of the inconsistent Christian mythology you attend to.
"Incidentally, I don't see any condemnation of the Baathist or Islamist terrorists who'have murdered so many in Iraq. UnChristian behaviour comes naturally to them, so no point in condemning them, I suppose."
We must condemn our own misdeeds before we condemn oher people's (there's a good religious principle); and it's our government that has invaded Iraq, not the Baathists who have invaded the UK, evildoers that they are.
Phil
"I would have thought that the week leading up to the Ascension was Jesus Christ's last week on earth. Wonder where that leaves all the other "facts" underpinning this piece?"
Whether the Ascension took place one day or 40 days after the Resurrection depends on which version of the inconsistent Christian mythology you attend to.
"Incidentally, I don't see any condemnation of the Baathist or Islamist terrorists who'have murdered so many in Iraq. UnChristian behaviour comes naturally to them, so no point in condemning them, I suppose."
We must condemn our own misdeeds before we condemn oher people's (there's a good religious principle); and it's our government that has invaded Iraq, not the Baathists who have invaded the UK, evildoers that they are.
Posted by: Phil, Edinburgh on 1:28pm Thu 20 Mar 08
The Ascension took place ten days before Whitsunday, which occurred 40 days after the Resurrection. Christ's last week on earth was the week before the Ascension.
Nice bit of cant there - fact is that the invasion was more than justified. Reflexive anti-Americanism that takes Saddam as its poster boy and then goes all religiose, as Ron does here, somehow fails to convince.
The Ascension took place ten days before Whitsunday, which occurred 40 days after the Resurrection. Christ's last week on earth was the week before the Ascension.
Nice bit of cant there - fact is that the invasion was more than justified. Reflexive anti-Americanism that takes Saddam as its poster boy and then goes all religiose, as Ron does here, somehow fails to convince.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 8:55pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Phil
Whitsunday? Not a first-century Jewish festival I'm familiar with. Please send me a copy of the Jewish festival calendar for the year of Jesus' death (and tell me when "Whitsun" fell in Judea that year, and what year that was, anyway), along with the date of the Resurrection, so I can check it out.
When did Jesus ascend to Heaven? On the day of the Resurrection (Mk 16:9, 19; Lk 24:13, 28-36, 50-51.) Note: the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and the rest of it is an interpolation: the original Mark had no account of he Resurrection at all, as asserted in
the NIV translation of the NT, and the New English Bible, and if you reject this modernism. the ancient Syriac version knows nothing about it either.
Or maybe, forty days after the Resurrection, according to Acts1:3, 9.
Anyway, I hope it didn't spoil the Apostles' Whitsun holiday.
"reflexive anti-Americanism that takes Saddam as its poster boy" - are you mad?
When I say the Baathists are evildoers, am I lying? Was it "reflexive anti-Americanism" that made the Americans support Saddam throughout 8 years of war against Iran? He was an American "poster boy" back then.
Ah, you religious belivers, and your "eternal truths"!
Phil
Whitsunday? Not a first-century Jewish festival I'm familiar with. Please send me a copy of the Jewish festival calendar for the year of Jesus' death (and tell me when "Whitsun" fell in Judea that year, and what year that was, anyway), along with the date of the Resurrection, so I can check it out.
When did Jesus ascend to Heaven? On the day of the Resurrection (Mk 16:9, 19; Lk 24:13, 28-36, 50-51.) Note: the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and the rest of it is an interpolation: the original Mark had no account of he Resurrection at all, as asserted in
the NIV translation of the NT, and the New English Bible, and if you reject this modernism. the ancient Syriac version knows nothing about it either.
Or maybe, forty days after the Resurrection, according to Acts1:3, 9.
Anyway, I hope it didn't spoil the Apostles' Whitsun holiday.
"reflexive anti-Americanism that takes Saddam as its poster boy" - are you mad?
When I say the Baathists are evildoers, am I lying? Was it "reflexive anti-Americanism" that made the Americans support Saddam throughout 8 years of war against Iran? He was an American "poster boy" back then.
Ah, you religious belivers, and your "eternal truths"!
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 10:34pm Thu 20 Mar 08
Why does Jesus always wear a loin cloth on the cross ? No it's not a bad taste joke it's a serious question - because if he didn't it would be evident that he was a Jewish man. The gospels don't tell us anything they were written and re written hundreds of years after Jesus death. When Christianity stopped being a Jewish sect it lost all touch with the reality of who Jesus was and what he actually died for. The Roman Catholic Church is a bolt on to the Holy Roman Empire it has no connection with the historical Jesus - who did exist - whatsoever. Mind you I am not criticising Christians I think Ron Ferguson is an excellent example of what a true belief in the words of the Sermon on the Mount can lead to. I think he would have been just as good as an atheist but if he has faith then I respect that. He wrote an excellent article some time ago about how he was prepared to leave his church if they did not accept homosexuals. I don't know what happened after that. But he is a man of principle and humanity if his Christ helps him to be that then that is why I do not have any issues with the genuine Christian.
Why does Jesus always wear a loin cloth on the cross ? No it's not a bad taste joke it's a serious question - because if he didn't it would be evident that he was a Jewish man. The gospels don't tell us anything they were written and re written hundreds of years after Jesus death. When Christianity stopped being a Jewish sect it lost all touch with the reality of who Jesus was and what he actually died for. The Roman Catholic Church is a bolt on to the Holy Roman Empire it has no connection with the historical Jesus - who did exist - whatsoever. Mind you I am not criticising Christians I think Ron Ferguson is an excellent example of what a true belief in the words of the Sermon on the Mount can lead to. I think he would have been just as good as an atheist but if he has faith then I respect that. He wrote an excellent article some time ago about how he was prepared to leave his church if they did not accept homosexuals. I don't know what happened after that. But he is a man of principle and humanity if his Christ helps him to be that then that is why I do not have any issues with the genuine Christian.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 9:57am Fri 21 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Usconbuts[/bold] wrote:
Phil
Whitsunday? Not a first-century Jewish festival I'm familiar with. Please send me a copy of the Jewish festival calendar for the year of Jesus' death (and tell me when "Whitsun" fell in Judea that year, and what year that was, anyway), along with the date of the Resurrection, so I can check it out.
When did Jesus ascend to Heaven? On the day of the Resurrection (Mk 16:9, 19; Lk 24:13, 28-36, 50-51.) Note: the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and the rest of it is an interpolation: the original Mark had no account of he Resurrection at all, as asserted in
the NIV translation of the NT, and the New English Bible, and if you reject this modernism. the ancient Syriac version knows nothing about it either.
Or maybe, forty days after the Resurrection, according to Acts1:3, 9.
Anyway, I hope it didn't spoil the Apostles' Whitsun holiday.
"reflexive anti-Americanism that takes Saddam as its poster boy" - are you mad?
When I say the Baathists are evildoers, am I lying? Was it "reflexive anti-Americanism" that made the Americans support Saddam throughout 8 years of war against Iran? He was an American "poster boy" back then.
Ah, you religious belivers, and your "eternal truths"!
[/quote] Well we can't be responsible for your ignorance. Of course the Jewish did not call it "Whitsun" - they did not speak English! The Jewish festival was called Shavuot, or Pentecost in Greek, sometimes translated as the "feast of the weeks." This became known by the peculiar English name of Whitsunday, because on the Sunday of the feast white vestments were worn. You should really check your facts before making a dogmatic fool of yourself.
Usconbuts wrote:
Phil
Whitsunday? Not a first-century Jewish festival I'm familiar with. Please send me a copy of the Jewish festival calendar for the year of Jesus' death (and tell me when "Whitsun" fell in Judea that year, and what year that was, anyway), along with the date of the Resurrection, so I can check it out.
When did Jesus ascend to Heaven? On the day of the Resurrection (Mk 16:9, 19; Lk 24:13, 28-36, 50-51.) Note: the original Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8, and the rest of it is an interpolation: the original Mark had no account of he Resurrection at all, as asserted in
the NIV translation of the NT, and the New English Bible, and if you reject this modernism. the ancient Syriac version knows nothing about it either.
Or maybe, forty days after the Resurrection, according to Acts1:3, 9.
Anyway, I hope it didn't spoil the Apostles' Whitsun holiday.
"reflexive anti-Americanism that takes Saddam as its poster boy" - are you mad?
When I say the Baathists are evildoers, am I lying? Was it "reflexive anti-Americanism" that made the Americans support Saddam throughout 8 years of war against Iran? He was an American "poster boy" back then.
Ah, you religious belivers, and your "eternal truths"!
Well we can't be responsible for your ignorance. Of course the Jewish did not call it "Whitsun" - they did not speak English! The Jewish festival was called Shavuot, or Pentecost in Greek, sometimes translated as the "feast of the weeks." This became known by the peculiar English name of Whitsunday, because on the Sunday of the feast white vestments were worn. You should really check your facts before making a dogmatic fool of yourself.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 10:41am Fri 21 Mar 08
Yes indeed, Observer.
The late Hyam Maccoby identified Yeshua the Nazarene as a messianic rebel, arming his followers, as recounted by Luke, and creating a serious disturbance in the Temple. Acts Ch 5 has Gamaliel comparing Jesus' followers with those of Judas of Galilee, "the Egyptian" and Theudas, all armed rebels, known also from Josephus. Gamaliel speaks of them with approval. Jesus died as Judas and Theudas died, and no doubt his motives were the same as theirs.
But I think the texts of the Gospels were substantially fixed before Christianity bolted itself to Rome and created Mr McCall's One And Only True Holy Apostolic Church that Boniface VIII, in one of his sterner moods, said you had to be baptised into to have any chance of salvation.
If I'm wrong about these things I hope I may be corrected, if not by a voice from Heaven, then by a post from Brigadoon.
Yes indeed, Observer.
The late Hyam Maccoby identified Yeshua the Nazarene as a messianic rebel, arming his followers, as recounted by Luke, and creating a serious disturbance in the Temple. Acts Ch 5 has Gamaliel comparing Jesus' followers with those of Judas of Galilee, "the Egyptian" and Theudas, all armed rebels, known also from Josephus. Gamaliel speaks of them with approval. Jesus died as Judas and Theudas died, and no doubt his motives were the same as theirs.
But I think the texts of the Gospels were substantially fixed before Christianity bolted itself to Rome and created Mr McCall's One And Only True Holy Apostolic Church that Boniface VIII, in one of his sterner moods, said you had to be baptised into to have any chance of salvation.
If I'm wrong about these things I hope I may be corrected, if not by a voice from Heaven, then by a post from Brigadoon.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 11:11am Fri 21 Mar 08
BM
Thank you for enlightening me. Perhaps you could also reconcile the discrepancies in NT accounts of Resurrection and the Ascension to which I referred.
See, among very many other works: "Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?" by Dan Barker.
This article first appeared in Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide To Media Mirages and Establishment Lies, edited by Russ Kick, 2003. (It’s available on line.)
“Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
“It is not just atheist critics who notice these problems. Christian scholars agree that the stories are discrepant. Culver H. Nelson: "In any such reading, it should become glaringly obvious that these materials often contradict one another egregiously. No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities can be harmonized."
“ … The religiously independent (though primarily Christian) scholars in the Westar Institute, which includes more than 70 bible scholars with Ph.D or equivalent, conclude: "The five gospels that report appearances (Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews) go their separate ways when they are not rewriting Mark; their reports cannot be reconciled to each other.”
BM
Thank you for enlightening me. Perhaps you could also reconcile the discrepancies in NT accounts of Resurrection and the Ascension to which I referred.
See, among very many other works: "Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?" by Dan Barker.
This article first appeared in Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide To Media Mirages and Establishment Lies, edited by Russ Kick, 2003. (It’s available on line.)
“Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
“It is not just atheist critics who notice these problems. Christian scholars agree that the stories are discrepant. Culver H. Nelson: "In any such reading, it should become glaringly obvious that these materials often contradict one another egregiously. No matter how eagerly one may wish to do so, there is simply no way the various accounts of Jesus' post-mortem activities can be harmonized."
“ … The religiously independent (though primarily Christian) scholars in the Westar Institute, which includes more than 70 bible scholars with Ph.D or equivalent, conclude: "The five gospels that report appearances (Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews) go their separate ways when they are not rewriting Mark; their reports cannot be reconciled to each other.”
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 4:58pm Fri 21 Mar 08
It really takes a self-proclaimed atheist like "Observer" to come up with this whopper about Christianity, which indicates complete historical amnesia: "The gospels don't tell us anything they were written and re written hundreds of years after Jesus death." Actually, all four were written within 70 years of Christ's Crucifixion, as were the Pauline Epistles, including those to the Romans (which inclides chapter 1, verses 24-27) and Hebrews (which includes chapter 13, verse 4). Hebrews and Peter, by the way, are not Gospels.
After revealing such a sad, but predictable, ignorance of history Observer then comes up this "tolerant" and patronising phrase "I do not have any issues with the genuine Christian." That leads one to wonder what are the beliefs of a genuine atheist. Have they anything in common with those of genuine Marxists, some of whom appear to people these pages, like the somewhat paranoid, pseudo-mentor, doting fellow, whose formative life experience appears to have taken place in "the land between the rivers," and his very strange hate-spewing bedfellows. Out of the mouths of atheists and bigotted anti-Christians wil predictably come more irrational venom after they have read this.
It really takes a self-proclaimed atheist like "Observer" to come up with this whopper about Christianity, which indicates complete historical amnesia: "The gospels don't tell us anything they were written and re written hundreds of years after Jesus death." Actually, all four were written within 70 years of Christ's Crucifixion, as were the Pauline Epistles, including those to the Romans (which inclides chapter 1, verses 24-27) and Hebrews (which includes chapter 13, verse 4). Hebrews and Peter, by the way, are not Gospels.
After revealing such a sad, but predictable, ignorance of history Observer then comes up this "tolerant" and patronising phrase "I do not have any issues with the genuine Christian." That leads one to wonder what are the beliefs of a genuine atheist. Have they anything in common with those of genuine Marxists, some of whom appear to people these pages, like the somewhat paranoid, pseudo-mentor, doting fellow, whose formative life experience appears to have taken place in "the land between the rivers," and his very strange hate-spewing bedfellows. Out of the mouths of atheists and bigotted anti-Christians wil predictably come more irrational venom after they have read this.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 5:24pm Fri 21 Mar 08
Tom McCall
Either address what we sons and daughters of perdition have spewed about the dubious historicity of the discrepant NT accounts of the Resurrection, or have a lie down and a cup of tea.
Yesterday I was at the at the funeral of a dear Roman Catholic friend and if you think I or "Observer" are "patronising" your co-religionists by noting the compassion of our genuine Christian friends and neighbours, or by admiring the Sermon on the Mount, you can stick your head up a dead bear's bum.
Tom McCall
Either address what we sons and daughters of perdition have spewed about the dubious historicity of the discrepant NT accounts of the Resurrection, or have a lie down and a cup of tea.
Yesterday I was at the at the funeral of a dear Roman Catholic friend and if you think I or "Observer" are "patronising" your co-religionists by noting the compassion of our genuine Christian friends and neighbours, or by admiring the Sermon on the Mount, you can stick your head up a dead bear's bum.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 5:45pm Fri 21 Mar 08
As I said above, these very strange people, like Usconbuts, are so predictable, not only in their empty-headed haverings, but also in their attempts at venom, which dribble from their mouths.
As I said above, these very strange people, like Usconbuts, are so predictable, not only in their empty-headed haverings, but also in their attempts at venom, which dribble from their mouths.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 6:05pm Fri 21 Mar 08
Tom McCall
You can't possibly be for real.
Tom McCall
You can't possibly be for real.
Posted by: Usconbuts, Glasgow on 6:37am Sat 22 Mar 08
Tom McCall
Sorry to inflict more dribbling venom on you. Your padded cell must be awash with the stuff by now. In your diatribe against Observer, you observe that “Hebrews and Peter, by the way, are not Gospels.”
The reference I cited is surely not to the EPISTLES to Hebrews, and attributed to Peter, in the NT, but to the non-canonical Gospels described below. See:
“The Development of the Canon of the New Testament
http://www.ntcanon.o
rg/Gospel_of_the_Heb
rews.shtml
“Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, mid 2nd century CE)
All that survives to us from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' are several quotations made by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Jerome took a lively interest in this book, an Aramaic copy of which he found in the famous library at Caesarea in Palestine. More than once he tells us (and with great pride) that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, these translations have been lost.”
http://www.ntcanon.o
rg/Gospel_of_Peter.s
html
“Gospel of Peter (Syria, 100-130 CE)
Down to 1886 scholars were aware of a Gospel of Peter, but not so much as a single quotation from it was known. … In the winter of 1886-7 a large fragment of the Greek text of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in a tomb of a monk at Akhmîm in Upper Egypt. It is a manuscript from the 8th century.”
Tom McCall
Sorry to inflict more dribbling venom on you. Your padded cell must be awash with the stuff by now. In your diatribe against Observer, you observe that “Hebrews and Peter, by the way, are not Gospels.”
The reference I cited is surely not to the EPISTLES to Hebrews, and attributed to Peter, in the NT, but to the non-canonical Gospels described below. See:
“The Development of the Canon of the New Testament
http://www.ntcanon.o
rg/Gospel_of_the_Heb
rews.shtml
“Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, mid 2nd century CE)
All that survives to us from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' are several quotations made by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem. Jerome took a lively interest in this book, an Aramaic copy of which he found in the famous library at Caesarea in Palestine. More than once he tells us (and with great pride) that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, these translations have been lost.”
http://www.ntcanon.o
rg/Gospel_of_Peter.s
html
“Gospel of Peter (Syria, 100-130 CE)
Down to 1886 scholars were aware of a Gospel of Peter, but not so much as a single quotation from it was known. … In the winter of 1886-7 a large fragment of the Greek text of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in a tomb of a monk at Akhmîm in Upper Egypt. It is a manuscript from the 8th century.”
