Admin Maesknoll Red Posted April 6, 2006 Admin Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...81591_1,00.htmlSo we'll no longer be able to use the Judas term for players who leave for bigger paypackets - it turns out he was a good guy after all.................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...81591_1,00.htmlThis is just a rehash of some old books, nothing new or "as yet undiscovered...."It'll not stop West Ham shouting at Paul Ince, Evertonians shouting at Wayne Rooney, etc. mainly because not many football fans read the Times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In my opinion there are many points in the Bible when it contradicts itself, so I'm not surprised at any "revelations". And as Revkev says most footballers wont be reading it anyway, as they would get stuck on "Escariot", only the 2nd word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In my opinion there are many points in the Bible when it contradicts itself, so I'm not surprised at any "revelations". And as Revkev says most footballers wont be reading it anyway, as they would get stuck on "Escariot", only the 2nd word...As did you Ron, which proves my point... it's "Iscariot" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 As did you Ron, which proves my point... it's "Iscariot"That'll teach me to play FM and write at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In my opinion there are many points in the Bible when it contradicts itself, so I'm not surprised at any "revelations". And as Revkev says most footballers wont be reading it anyway, as they would get stuck on "Escariot", only the 2nd word...Most noticeably the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. So that 'an eye for an eye' becomes 'turn the other cheek' etc when dealing with our enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB. Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Most noticeably the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. So that 'an eye for an eye' becomes 'turn the other cheek' etc when dealing with our enemies. Not everything in the Bible is meant as an instruction. In the old testament things are included as a background as to why things were needed to be done.An eye for an eye (Old Testament) is no longer needed to be done as Jesus paid the cost on the cross once for all (New Testament). I'm not 100% sure if that last couple of lines I've written is correct, it's just a thought really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurrayLives Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 That'll teach me to play FM and write at the same time typing Ron. You were typing.Don't mix FM with forums. Play responsibily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 In my opinion there are many points in the Bible when it contradicts itself, so I'm not surprised at any "revelations". And as Revkev says most footballers wont be reading it anyway, as they would get stuck on "Escariot", only the 2nd word...Yeah....... I don't like snails either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Judas......... is a dude that didn't die he and she is living amoung us to this day....... think on.That said I maybe right or wrong in thinking that the dude was not all bad........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Not everything in the Bible is meant as an instruction. In the old testament things are included as a background as to why things were needed to be done.An eye for an eye (Old Testament) is no longer needed to be done as Jesus paid the cost on the cross once for all (New Testament). I'm not 100% sure if that last couple of lines I've written is correct, it's just a thought really.This is good stuff, more theological discussion on the forum than in my parish!!Great post, BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Most noticeably the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. So that 'an eye for an eye' becomes 'turn the other cheek' etc when dealing with our enemies. So, can you please clarify, when I see a Gashead do I wack 'em or show 'em me cheeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 So, can you please clarify, when I see a Gashead do I wack 'em or show 'em me cheeks? whatever you do, don't show them your cheeks, it'll only excite them.... goodness knows, they don't get excitement at the Minimal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 This is good stuff, more theological discussion on the forum than in my parish!!Great post, BBreach out and find your flockers.......... cool .......... I like the theological discussion angle too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Better than "Thought For The Day" on Radio Four! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Better than "Thought For The Day" on Radio Four!Very true............ 10 to 8 can be a blooming pain sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Very true............ 10 to 8 can be a blooming pain sometimesSometimes I'm in the shower when thought for the day comes on. At the end I think to myself, "What was THAT all about?" Am more confused than before they started rambling on.My Bishop (James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool) is a regular contributor, he often confuses me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset_Cider Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Sometimes I'm in the shower when thought for the day comes on. At the end I think to myself, "What was THAT all about?" Am more confused than before they started rambling on.My Bishop (James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool) is a regular contributor, he often confuses me too.Sometimes I think yeah okay.......... I can go with that ........ I'm a human after all (collective conscience)Other times I think.......... shut up..... why should you be given the airtime to come out with such tosh.Oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 6, 2006 Report Share Posted April 6, 2006 Sometimes I think yeah okay.......... I can go with that ........ I'm a human after all (collective conscience)Other times I think.......... shut up..... why should you be given the airtime to come out with such tosh.Oh well I agree. I wonder how some of them get selected, I'd love to go on there, comment on last night's footy or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry_manc Posted April 7, 2006 Report Share Posted April 7, 2006 It's about time Judas' image was cleared up, if anything just for the Christian Jewish relationships factor.Has anyone been to 'La Familia' in Barcelona? It's a cathedral depicting Christs life through statues and right round the back, tucked away on his own is the Judas statue, with his arms out-stretched in some Simpsonsesque position, as if to say "I didn't do it". Absolute comedy genious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 There was a programme on TV Last night about the "Gospel of Judas", dating it from the 2nd. century A.D. and holding to the idea that Judas was Jesus' best mate while the other disciples were as thick as two short planks.It proved nothing about who really wrote it, and as no original copies in Greek exist - only one translation in Coptic Egyptian - then it was 2 hours of my life totally wasted, as all the programme could say was that the leaders of the Church condemned this text as heresy in 180 or thereabouts. So officially Judas still stinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DrFaustus Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 An eye for an eye (Old Testament) is no longer needed to be done as Jesus paid the cost on the cross once for all (New Testament). This is further contradicted by the talk of a vengeful God. Confusing stuff."Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19, NIV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 Most noticeably the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament. So that 'an eye for an eye' becomes 'turn the other cheek' etc when dealing with our enemies. "An eye for an eye" originates from the Code of Hammurabi. It's only appearance in the bible is as an example of what not to do."You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."Don't believe all these idiot American evangelists justifying the death sentence this way, they're just showing their illiteracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.