Friday, December 02, 2011

Matthew Gould - serving the Zionist master


There is a curious fuss about the comments of Labour's Paul Flynn MP, who suggested that Matthew Gould is an inappropriate choice for British Ambassador to Israel, because he is, er... Jewish.

Mr Flynn has reportedly been carpeted by Labour Chief Whip Rosie Winterton, rebuked by Edward Miliband, and sent to Coventry by his Labour colleagues.

Mr Gould is the UK's first Jewish envoy to Israel. Mr Flynn raised the ages-old question of divided loyalties: the political dilemma of serving (or being perceived as serving) two masters. Mr Flynn said: “No Jewish diplomat has held the post before because of concerns that it might lead to a conflict of interest, or at the very least create the impression of dual loyalty. Given these traditional concerns, Gould was a strange choice. He is a self-declared Zionist who has cultivated an image that led the Forward, the most prominent Jewish newspaper in the US, to describe him recently as ‘not just an ambassador’.”

Mr Flynn is firmly of the opinion that the post should be filled by 'someone with roots in the UK (who) can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty'.

This is curious.

If Mr Flynn is preoccupied with 'traditional concerns', why did he not object to the appointment of Francis Campbell, the UK's first Roman Catholic ambassador to the Holy See since the Reformation? That particular potential divided loyalty has rather more historic resonance than any Jewish treason or plot against the British State. Would Mr Flynn object to Roman Catholic convert Ann Widdecombe being appointed to the Holy See? Might she not conspire with the cardinals to abolish contraception and outlaw abortion in the UK? Would Mr Flynn object to Sayeeda Warsi being appointed ambassador to Pakistan? That is not an unlikely future posting for her, but would she pass Norman Tebbit's 'cricket test? And what of Labour's Shahid Malik, who appears to favour the total islamification of Britain within the next 30 years? Or Sadiq Khan, determined to subsume Britain's justice system to sharia? Are they serving Allah or Her Majesty?

Why is it that Paul Flynn raises the need for a religio-political 'Test Act' upon Jews, but has never once questioned the potential divided loyalties of Muslims or Roman Catholics? Why is Mr Flynn concerned only with Zionist conspiracy? Is it because talk of 'papist plots' and 'political Islam' might offend minorities? It is bizarre indeed that, having incrementally abolished restrictions upon Nonconformists and Roman Catholics holding public office, Paul Flynn seeks to render Jews ineligible for postings which relate to Israel.

As it happens, His Grace thinks such questions may be pertinent, and MPs ought to be free to express concerns and reservations. But the fact that Paul Flynn singles out the Jews is undeniably and undoubtedly anti-Semitic, no matter how 'friendly' he professes to be towards Israel.

195 Comments:

Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Your Grace, the political classes in the UK have always held an ambiguous position on Israel. We simply cannot, it seems, forgive them for aspiring to having their own state - something we promised and reneged on to curry favour with the Arab nations - and now, whenever a question arises the accusation of "Zionism" or associations with the "Stern Gang" or Hagganah are immediately made by the "liberal" Left who, it often seems, will be satisfied with nothing less than the eradication of Israel as a nation.

I'm surprised Mr Flynn has been disciplined at all by his fellow Labour members given that they are among those demanding a dismantling of border defences and a return to the indefensible borders that were imposed pre-1967 ...

2 December 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger blondpidge said...

It's one thing questioning Zionism, but Paul Flynn did not distinguish between that and Jewishness which is where his rant lapsed into disgraceful anti-Semitism of the most ignorant nature.

2 December 2011 at 11:03  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

blondpidge, those who DO distinguish between Jews and Zionism are either anti-Semites (if they are Gentiles) or self-hating Jews (if they are Jews). At least according to Zionists. That being the case, I don't see how Flynn can be called an anti-Semite for NOT distinguishing. Except, of course, by invoking the lying hypocricy which is the leitmotif of Zionism.

As to the substantive issue, no, Muslims should not be ambassadors to Pakistan for the same reason as Gould should not be ambassador to Israel. As for Catholics being ambassadors to the Vatican, sure, if the Vatican were a militarily powerful state with a territorially expansionist agenda and plans to dispossess the rightful owners of land to which it is not entitled, then of course Catholics would at the very least be perceived as having divided loyalties and for that reason alone they should not serve as ambassador.

However, I don't think the Swiss Guard are quite up to the task of empire-building (at least not temporal empires) so I don't suppose it matters that much. I don't suppose Cranmer thinks it matters that much either, but he obviously couldn't resist the chance to take a swipe at Rome. Good to see he's got his priorities right.

2 December 2011 at 11:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I do find it strange that you insist that the State treats the RC Church with respect on a par with Muslims. I think perhaps you should see it from our perspective and understand we are far less well regarded by those in charge than even the CofE.

2 December 2011 at 11:24  
Blogger DP111 said...

Quote: Is it because talk of 'papist plots' and 'political Islam' might offend minorities?

Its worse then that. The fear of a fatwa trumps all.

2 December 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Corrigan1 wrote; 'if the Vatican were a militarily powerful state'.
It dooes not require a military solution for expasionist policies. Catholics have practised both military and non military practices to advance the Holy Roman Empire in history. The Muslim nations have tradionaly followed their founders ideoligy and forcefully taken nations but
we now have a situation where Muslims are covertly trying to take over through imigration, infiltration and an insidious fear of saying anything against them.
Frankly I think the UK has treated the Jewish nation poorly in the past. A displaced people, despised and abused, were subject to the same aggresive demands of the Islamic nations that had occupied their tradional territory.

2 December 2011 at 12:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

[I]f the Vatican were a militarily powerful state with a territorially expansionist agenda and plans to dispossess the rightful owners of land to which it is not entitled, then of course Catholics would at the very least be perceived as having divided loyalties

Ah, Yes, the Pope. How many divisions does he have? Your argument has a strong historical pedigree, Corrigan1.

Which is greater? The Ambassador or the gov't which appoints the Ambassador? For surely if any given man cannot be trusted to represent the interests of his country as an ambassador, then he can't be trusted to set policy for the nation either. Perhaps there should be a religious test for political office whereby Jews should be excluded. Otherwise they might sacrifice the national interest for the sake of divided loyalty.

Or perhaps we could judge each man according to his own integrity? How foolish am I! Such a rule can't be applied in the case of those duplicitous Jews.

carl

2 December 2011 at 12:20  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Corrigan1 said...

"As to the substantive issue, no, Muslims should not be ambassadors to Pakistan for the same reason as Gould should not be ambassador to Israel."

I tend to agree with this comment and I think Mr ABC alludes to it too. It's restricting to comment to Jews and Zionism that's the issue.

"As for Catholics being ambassadors to the Vatican, sure, if the Vatican were a militarily powerful state with a territorially expansionist agenda ... then of course Catholics would at the very least be perceived as having divided loyalties and for that reason alone they should not serve as ambassador."

Do keep up. Don't you know we Catholics ARE plotting the overthrow of democracy. Our cunning plan, having established the EU, is to continue its growth into a monolithic State and use it as a base for world domination.

Mr Integrity has spotted our tactics! Sharp eye that man.

"Catholics have practised both military and non military practices to advance the Holy Roman Empire in history."

A true comment but wait, they'll be a couple of hard-liners on very shortly banging the Daniel and Revelation drum and warning us all the "end days" are coming.

2 December 2011 at 12:26  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Dear Carl Jacobs,

While Jews are excellent at playing the martyr, when it comes to guilt-tripping, I'm afraid you're still only trotting behind the Catholic mother. To put the case plainly, Israel is not the state of its citizens, it is (by its own description) the state of ALL JEWS WORLDWIDE. It's not me saying this, it is Israel itself, and for that reason (one discrimination among many) no Arab 'citizen' of Israel can pass on this citizenship to their children if their spouse is a Palestinian, whereas every Jew anywhere in the world can go to Israel at any time. Are you seriously trying to tell me that a British Jew would regard Israel as just another country, like Iran, South Korea or Argentina?

2 December 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan1

Israel is not the state of its citizens, it is (by its own description) the state of ALL JEWS WORLDWIDE.

What the state of Israel might claim about itself is irrelevant to the determination of the loyalty of an given British citizen. You have just declared a blanket assertion of Jewish disloyalty that would logically restrict any Jew from holding any position of trust with the Gov't. I thought I was being sarcastic when I said you would prevent a Jew from holding the office of Prime Minister. Now I begin to wonder.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a British Jew would regard Israel as just another country, like Iran, South Korea or Argentina?

Your question assumes a false premise. A man does not have to regard every foreign country in the same way in order to establish his loyalty. I am an American, and I do not regard the UK as 'just another country.' That does not affect my loyalty to the US.

btw, since you evidently presumed otherwise, let me correct your misapprehension. I am not Jewish. I have no idea what "trotting behind the Catholic mother" means.

carl

2 December 2011 at 13:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Why is Israel so despised and singled out for hatred by insinuation, even in our own country?

Zechariah 12

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.”

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”

Israel is like a banner to the entire world that the word of God is the truth and it is eternal. With each passing day, as Jerusalem becomes more and more the center of the world’s attention, it will become increasingly difficult for anyone to dispute the incredible accuracy of these ancient prophecies. Truly, the time to seek God is now, if you don’t know Him.

The jews have never given up the hope for their promised return there, as prophesied in the word of God. (Isaiah 11:11-12; Ezekiel 36:8-11 Ezekiel 37:21-22; Ezekiel 38:8, Isaiah 43:5-6; Jeremiah 31:7-10).

The nations surrounding Israel (Psalm 83:4-8), the international community, and the Vatican - all have a different goal in mind for Jerusalem. They would all remove complete Jewish control over the city for their own purposes however as stated by the prophet..

Zechariah Chapter 12 ends with the Messiah’s prophesied return:

“And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”

Ernst 'a non roman catholic hardliner' Blofeld

Ps

"Are you seriously trying to tell Ernst that a British Roman Catholic would regard a pope as just another religious figure, that has no influence on him' or is it just 'The Jew' that cannot be trusted?"

Corrigan1 Dodo...The church is NOT Israel! Priceless!

2 December 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you again, for the umpteenth time, Your Grace, for once again hitting an issue smack in the middle of the kisser. And, here's my wager: Of all the things that will be said in the forthcoming days, your say will be the most unambiguous statement to come out of fair Albion. This is why, thou timid fellow British Yids, if any of you happen to be about, I'm to be found loitering on an Anglican site run by a long-dead Archbishop and spiced by a good number of Christian folks with big brass balls, whose knowledge and directness, on all sides of the "Jewish question," should put us all to shame.

I don't know much about Mr Flynn, and I don't care much about Mr Flynn. I factor-in oily characters like him as part of the standard fare in government services. Funnily enough, the diplomatic corps of the West are filled with all sorts of appeasers, poltroons and Arabists, fellows who have "gone native" after their service in the Middle East, and it would be a hoot if this "crisis" spilled over onto their turf and caused an examination of who is who, and who does what and who gets his baksheesh in the form of juicy consultation contracts from the Saudis or Iranians after his term...but let's be serious, that's not likely going to happen in our liftimes.

Instead, Your Grace, my eyes and ears will be trained ... with some amusement, as I'm well past anger or even disappointment ... at the stirrings among the remanants of your British Jewry instead. Among us in-yer-face Canadians, South Africans and Australians, the British Jewish community has, with some honourable exceptions which can be numbered on the fingers of one's hand, a reputation for meekness, abject appeasement and outright cowardice. I await, with a feeling of resignation, the apologies, the hand-wringing, the long-winded explanations, waffling rationalizations and of course "principled" defenses of the Flynn types by the liberal and "post-Zionist" Jewish establishment of London. On the other hand, maybe I'll spare myself and just confine my readings to this blog. Shabbat shalom, haverim, keep the curtains drawn and walk on tippy-toes.

2 December 2011 at 13:12  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Avi
Welcome back!

Could you define "Zionism"? It means different things to different people.

(I'm Gay again after my fast following you pointing out my mistake and suggesting I was becoming corrupted.))

2 December 2011 at 14:06  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Carl Jacobs

I agree with you.

It took this country centuries to trust Roman Catholics - somestill don't. Has there ever been a Roman Catholic Prime Minister? There has been a Jewish one.

2 December 2011 at 14:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Eh? Oh, well, if I thought we were talking about Roman Catholics, then I would have made a completely different argument. RCs are treacherous, sneaky, and bear considerable watching.

[skitters away and hides]

carl ;)

2 December 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger BrianSJ said...

I trust Your Grace has read the posts by Craig Murray on Gould.

2 December 2011 at 15:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the hilarious

"Has there ever been a Roman Catholic Prime Minister?" I nearly wee'd me incontinence nappy. BLAIR! What was that old RC chestnut about economy and reserve with the truth.

What a perfect match Rome and B.liar make...like a glove!

Has there ever been a jewish Prime Minister?
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1880) Queen Victoria's favorite Prime Minister.

Ernsty, me fine papist

2 December 2011 at 15:10  
Blogger Oswin said...

I think it wise, that the chief ambassadorial role, wherever, be separated from too close a personal association.

Both Mr.Flyn and Mr. Campbell would be acceptable in a lesser role, or as ambassadors elsewhere, where their personal circumstances would be less open to contention.

2 December 2011 at 15:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, I got to work sometimes, you know. His Grace doesn't pay me enough as the resident Zionist propagandizer, and the Elders are too old and have misplaced their bags of doucats. As a half-Jew, you should know how things are, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, know what I mean? As for your questions on Zionism, please google it first, form your own opinions and I'll address any questions or answers you might have...from my own inimitable and totally unrepresentative perspective, of course. Perish the thought I should be suspected of bending a virgin mind.

And congrats on taking your colours out of the musty closet and flying them with such evident pride! Your achromatic avatar and American spelling of grey didn't suit you too well.

Corrigan, duh, did you know that your PM Cameron has a distinctly Scottish name? Do you wonder where his heart may lie with all the Scottish nationalists rattling their cages? Must pump him full of sodium pentathol and switch on the bright lights, aye, and ditto for all the folks with Irish names like yours serving in your government or working in key industries, what! Shocking, that no one's keeping an eye out on such things. Now there's job for you, eh? Sniffing everyone's proverbial dirty underwear and hauling in anyone with questionable backgrounds and musings. While at it, perhaps you should warn Israel about its Israeli Arab embassador to Canada, or the recent interim Israeli Arab president, both of whom naive fools like me think of as capable chaps who deserve trust respect. For the record, I don't object to a Muslim or anyone else serving as a diplomat to a Muslim or non-Muslim country; I expect the governments in charge to appoint men and women of professionalism and integrity.

As for your "leitmotifs" of Zionism, suspicious Jewish loyalties, wisdoms on Jewish plays at martyrdom and opinions on Israel, such feeble shit-fer-brains squawks don't even qualify you as a self-respecting bona fide antisemite anymore (ah-hah, there, the Jew used the Word!); in these times of stridency and hyperbolae, I expect much more. Go for it, make me imagine I din't waste precious minutes of my life on you.

2 December 2011 at 15:19  
Blogger ericfromnewyork said...

Corrigan1

Israel is not the state of its citizens, it is (by its own description) the state of ALL JEWS WORLDWIDE.


This is simply not so. The writer is confusing citizenship with "ethnos," or nationality. The Jews are a "people." The Jewish state has a standing offer to extend citizenship to Jewish people IF they APPLY for it (and Israel is by no means the only state which has such rules. Germany comes to mind).
It has been observed by several commentators that this (mis-)logic would effectively rule out trusting any Jew with any responsibility in government.

2 December 2011 at 15:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

Avi @ 15:19 :

Historical note: In general, those of Scots ancestry who attain political, or indeed 'regal' power, within the wider confines of Britain as a whole, traditionally abandon their previous association, and proceed to 'shaft' their own countrymen.

The then seemingly traditional, follow-on response being: to attribute all blame to England! :o)

2 December 2011 at 15:44  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Even an article about Jews elicits an anti-Catholic mongfest....

That's why I love this blog - it attracts all the Mongs like flies to shit.

Now where's the fly spray?.....

2 December 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ps. Those, as mentioned, usually get to 'shaft' England too...but WE don't make such a big deal out of it. ;o)

2 December 2011 at 15:49  
Blogger Oswin said...

Nowhere man @ 15:48 :

How lyrical of you!

2 December 2011 at 15:52  
Blogger Oswin said...

Me again - sorry! Should read @ 15:10 : 'Matthew Gould' and NOT ''Mr. Flyn''!

2 December 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger Average Joe said...

The problem is that the west's support of Israel is one of the reasons why so many Muslims hate us so much. Sending a Jewish ambassador to Israel would only make the Muslims hate us more. Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups would use a Jewish ambassador as proof that Britain is anti-Muslim and use him as a recruiting tool for more terrorist attacks in Britain. It makes sense to appoint an ambassador to Israel who is neither Jewish nor Muslim so that the British can be seen to be maintaining a neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2 December 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Nowhere Man 2 December 2011 15:48

"Now where's the fly spray?....." (Suppose thats better than a pile of faggots and a lucifer...small mercies indeed!)
Think you'll probably find it under the sink near the toiletries, left side of 'Pope on a Rope' the sin-free soap?

From the musical Couth Pathetic;

"I'm gonna wash that sin right outa my life,
I'm gonna wash that sin right outa my life,
I'm gonna wash that sin right outa my life,
At least that's what popey says."

Ernst 'waxing lyrical' Blofeld

2 December 2011 at 16:15  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It would seem that if anyone believes in anything other than a secular society, it could disqualify you from having any meaningful position in government, (with the exception of Muslims). I certainly don’t see any ‘Alive’ Christians in Government. Was there not someone who made what was considered an inappropriate remark and was sacked? And then there was a candidate in the 2005 election sacked from his candidacy for what was considered an inappropriate religious comment.
This and most Governments do not want anyone who might be an embarrassment to them by saying anything that might cause offence to anyone.

2 December 2011 at 16:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oswin,

Thanks for confirming a suspicion I've had. We're all free to make our choices, I suppose. Still, they couldn't shine a light on the shafting vigour of some of my brethren.

Average Joe,

Yes, yes! There, you got it! Mere tribute isn't enough. The billions and billions in aid and petro-dollars, all fluttering like flocks of little green birds, darkening the very skies, are not enough. The grovelling and the bowing and scraping are pleasant...as a side dish...but still not enough. The wide open doors are just social justice and and deserving compensation for colonialism. The art of being "seen to be maintaining a neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" must involve the clear declaration of the Jew as the poisonous foreign object in the body of the nation. They'll become nice then, they'll leave you alone and all will be well.

2 December 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Ernsty

Mr Blair was not admitted to the Roman Catholic Church until after he left office. You do know this? Remember all the kerfuffle about him being asked not to receive the Eucharist?

Mr Blair formally entered the church in 2007 after over 10 years of attending services. Why so long? Because of sensitivity about the place of Catholicism in British public life. The only positions barred to Catholics are marriage to the sovereign or heir to the throne, or becoming sovereign themselves.

There has never been a Catholic Prime Minister. In the last 40 years Catholics have entered more senior positions in British public life, generally without comment except among the wilder fringes of Protestant Calvinism.

The motives of Catholic politicians are regarded with suspicion by non-Catholics based on the allegation that they take their orders from the Vatican rather than the electorate.

However, there are real moral dilemmas for Catholic politicians - civil partnerships and now 'marriage' for homosexual couples, equality provisions enabling homosexual couples to adopt children, limiting abortion 'rights'- to name a few.

2 December 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Her Majesty’s representatives abroad should be beyond reproach. We can be sure that only honourable men or women are considered for the post, so each must ask themselves whether or not any criticism coming their way makes their position tenable or not. And in this case, it’s a friendly country...

So, come on chaps, give a fellow a chance...

2 December 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger Oswin said...

We're not suspicious at all Dodo; we're just not letting you back into the top seats, is all...thus no suspicion!

2 December 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger Roy said...

I wonder if Paul Flynn would agree that nobody with "divided loyalties" should work in Heathrow or in any other sensitive area?

For that matter, what would the reaction be if a right-wing politician said that nobody who might have divided loyalties should be allowed to become an MP?

2 December 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. A true comment but wait, they'll be a couple of hard-liners on very shortly banging the Daniel and Revelation drum and warning us all the "end days" are coming..

Brilliant old chap – sadly those true words won't deter those responsible from laying down their masses of biblical smoke, more’s the pity…

2 December 2011 at 17:58  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Inspector
My bit of 'prophecy'. They are on the thread below at the moment.

2 December 2011 at 18:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Stone me, you're right and it's Blofeld. He must have had insomnia last night ! Either that or the nursing staff left him on the commode overnight, the silly old bugger...

2 December 2011 at 18:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...and weasel has sneaked in. No surprise there then...

2 December 2011 at 18:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I wonder if the Archbishop is aware ‘the protestant boys’ have turned his esteemed blog site into a bible study class. Absolutely disgraceful, what !

2 December 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hey, yeah, what gives? What's with this Protestant-Catholic stuff again? This is about us Jews! How does one get any attention?

Aaany-hoo, pse-Sabbath errands beckon (sic., not bacon). Play nice, everyone. Learn from me and speak gently, courteously and with fairness and respect towards everyone, no matter his, her or its opinion. With wisdom, moderation and even-handedness, and no personal attacks, smarmy insults, or over-the-top histrionics, please. Carry on, now.

2 December 2011 at 19:27  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

You know it is possible to be too suspicious and see traitors round every corner. The British establishment has a track record over the last 500 years of fomenting division in society very often dishonestly at the expense of loyal subjects. We see the same thing today with a kid glove approach to Muslim crimes and harsher sentences against the majority population.. If the ambassador to Israel was Jewish we would expect him to be pro-Israel – what’s wrong with that? There would be no point I having the position filled by someone who was a paid up member of Hamas. However, a Jewish ambassador conveying British concerns about Israeli restrictions on the Palestinian state etc. may well have more effect. The question of Zionism is a different matter. I don’t have any problem with a Jewish state but as I understand it, Zionism is something much more sinister and secret with a very large agenda. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong but currently I would be concerned if the ambassador was a Zionist.
We all have our personal baggage and we cannot expect complete conformity. They don’t even get that in the Cabinet. What you get are people arguing their own corner. Recently we had William Haig saying the coalition cabinet was less divided than previous conservative ones he had been in. Neither do I see anything wrong with the ambassador to the Vatican being personally against artificial contraception, stem cell research or abortion. The day we get complete unanimity within political parties we will no longer have democracy and unfortunately this seems to be the way we are heading.

2 December 2011 at 19:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Just a quick peek and a quick note, Schacklefree. Zionism is Jewish nationalism, in all of its varieties and permutations, very much as with other forms of nationalism. Most Jews see themselves as Zionists...I do. The sinister stuff comes from the letter "z", an universally feared aspirant, I'm guessing, and from nasty lies and paranoias. Anyway, remind me later and I'll reply in more detail.

2 December 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger len said...

Inspector you may not have noticed but His Grace`s esteemed Blog covers Politico/religious matters and if you Catholic boys keep promoting error(as you do)then it is our Christian duty to address your errors.


Back to the point in question which is anti Semitism which shamefully features in the Church
and is rooted in' replacement theology'.


Ignatius of Antioch (ca 50-117 AD) - Taught that those who partake of the Passover are partakers with those who killed Jesus.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) - Claimed God’s covenant with Israel was no longer valid and that the Gentiles had replaced the Jews.

Irenaeus (ca 130-202 AD) - Declared the Jews were disinherited from the grace of God.

Tertullian (ca 155-230 AD) - Blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus and argued they had been rejected by God.

Origen (185-254 AD) - He was responsible for much anti-Semitism, all of which was based on his assertion that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus.

The Council of Elvira (305 AD in Spain) - Prohibited Christians from sharing a meal with a Jew, marrying a Jew, blessing a Jew or observing the Sabbath.

The Council of Nicea (325 AD in Turkey) - Changed the celebration of the Resurrection from the Jewish Feast of First Fruits to Easter in an attempt to disassociate it from Jewish feasts. The Council stated: “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people ...”

Eusebius (ca 275-339 AD) - Taught that the promises of Scripture were meant for the Gentiles and the curses were meant for the Jews. Asserted that the Church was the “true Israel.”

John Chrysostom (349-407 AD) - Preached a series of sermons against the Jews in which he stated, “The synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater, it is also a den of robbers and lodging place for wild beasts ... Jews are inveterate murderers possessed by the Devil. Their debauchery and drunkenness gives the manners of a pig.” He denied that Jews could ever receive forgiveness. He claimed it was a Christian duty to hate Jews. He claimed that Jews worshiped Satan. And this man was canonized a saint!

Jerome (ca 347-420 AD) - Described the Jews as “... serpents wearing the image of Judas. Their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys … They are incapable of understanding Scripture …”

St. Augustine (354-430 AD) - Asserted that the Jews deserved death but were destined to wander the earth to witness the victory of the Church over the synagogue.”

Also Luther I believe was Anti Semitic.

It is shameful the way the Church tried to sever its Jewish roots and this church endorsed Anti Semitism has had far reaching effects.

2 December 2011 at 20:13  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Thanks Avi, I would welcome information. However I do have my suspicions. For example, the following quote from Christian Order:

Among other things, and consistent with the Alta Vendita and fulminations of high-ranking Masons of every race and religion, B'nai B'rith members said at this secret meeting in Paris:

"We've covered the Catholic Church with the most abominable slanders, we have falsified Her history and we have soiled Her noblest activity, we attributed the wickedness of Her enemies to the Church .... but we can't claim to have achieved our goal of our work. The Catholic Church is still alive ... We must destroy it, without the least delay and without mercy. ... May our children become Bishops and Cardinals, so they can destroy the Catholic Church!"

Since Vatican II we have not heard any condemnation of Communism or Fremasonry and apparently with regard to the Assissi gathering which I personally deplore, there have been representations by B'nai B'rith to remove the cross, the central symbol of Christianity. It's like asking for the removal of the menorah from Jewish ceremonies by non-Jews.

2 December 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Average Joe @ 16.11, your comment is possibly the most spineless yet seen on this blog. If the Muslims hate us so much, why are they queuing ten deep at the gates to get in?

Look at it another way, in sixty years the Jews in Israel have created a first world nation with a standard of living that is comparable to anything in Europe or the Anglosphere. All done without excessive debt to GDP and with continuing economic growth. This is what the Muslims really hate, Israel makes them look so inadequate.

If an independent Palestinian state ever comes in to being, where will it be in sixty years? Would that be with or without billion dollar subsidies from the guilt-tripping EU?

Think about the answers and then rethink your own comment about remaining 'neutral'.

2 December 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Shacklefree, when you mentioned B'nai Brith, I cringed and broke out in guilty sweat. For a split second I thought myself nailed by an emissary of the Brotherhood, an agent who searched far and wide to find me hiding out here in fear...to no avail. You see, between you and me, it's been nearly two years since I've paid up my B'nai Brith Toronto membership fees, and I still get the newsletter, discounts for this and that, and all sorts of invites to glitzy banquets and such. I think I also owe a book to the library, but can't imagine where I've put it.

Seriously, dude, the stuff you heard is demented stupidity. B'nai Brith is a club organization formed at the time when Jews weren't admitted into the posh private clubs, the Orange Lodges in Upper Canada, or the Catholic Knights of Columbus. We play hockey with the Knights of Columbus chaps, our big shots golf together and have inter-religious to-dos to look important and no one I've met wants to remove the cross, or, G-d forbid, to see their children become Catholics so they can ostensibly tear the papacy apart. Such notions are sheer shite, something I felt I need to tell you before I rush off to the synagogue. Of course, as is the case with any of this stuff, there is no way to defend against committed slanders and loonie phantasmagoria (ah, but the one I go to is a front, aha!), so it's up to your judgment, connections to reality and levels of sanity to make a determination.

Ta-da, everyone, over and out!

2 December 2011 at 21:07  
Blogger HampsteadOwl said...

Sayeeda Warsi: would she pass Norman Tebbit's cricket test?

By her own admission she once went up to Tebbit in the Lords and told him that she would not. She supports Pakistan.

2 December 2011 at 21:15  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

len said ...

"Also Luther I believe was Anti Semitic."

You really know very little about the roots of your protestant heritage! Luther hated all things Jewish with a passion. Have a read of some of his most infamous sayings.

So far as the early Church is concerned, yes they believed in replacement theology. And why not? It is biblically based, unlike your wild imaginings.

Do grow up! Have you any idea of current Catholic theological thinking on the place of Jews in salvation history? No, of course not.

So tell me:

Can Jews be saved without accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Are the Jewish people the Chosen people of God from whom the Messiah will come and establish His Kingdom?

Are Gentiles inheritors of the Promises made to the Jewish people by God?

What role do the Jewish people have in salvation history now.

And do answer for yourself. Not reams cut and pasted from those web sites you visit.

2 December 2011 at 21:36  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Inspector

I wouldn't besmirch all protestants by associating them with len and Blofeld. These two are fundamentalist evangelicals - the scourge of all Christianity.

They are sent to try us!

2 December 2011 at 21:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. His Grace`s esteemed Blog covers Politico/religious matters

You’re taking liberties son, and well you know it. Yes it’s politico/religious, but the Archbishop sets the thread, and we should respond accordingly. You might post one relevant comment, or then again you might not, and after that it’s your business as normal – spreading your ludicrous heresies. You’ve been found out. What have you got to say on that accusation, Sir.

2 December 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

These two are fundamentalist evangelicals

Now there is an assertion crying out for a definition. What is a 'fundamentalist evangelical?' Or perhaps you are simply revealing what is already well known on this weblog. You are a Jesuit Spy. A Papist Provocateur. A Romanist Fifth Column Infiltrator. You and your ilk are entirely unworthy of any position of trust due to your 'divided loyalties.' Now that you have been exposed, you should shrink back in mortification and shame.

carl

2 December 2011 at 22:11  
Blogger English Viking said...

All hail the Jews.

The sooner they take over the world, the better.

PS To whom it may concern;

Leave Len alone. I'm sure he's big enough to fight his own battles, but if he is not, I am more than happy to join the fray.

2 December 2011 at 22:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I've asked several times previously, and always I have been met with a non-committal rebuff.

But now I know; replacement theorist you are.

WRONG.

What next? Kingdom now? Name it and claim it?


Have a read of Isaiah mate. Take no notice of your Pope, nor your 'priest'.

PS REALLY. HONESTLY. WV = panic

2 December 2011 at 22:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

As you were men, the Inspector’s here. Now, what’s all this guff about Len and what appears to be his Admiration Society. He’s not a prophet you know, just a very naughty boy, and with a cat fixation. Dashed peculiar if you ask the Inspector, cats being witches mediums and all that. Decidedly odd, don’t you agree...

2 December 2011 at 22:35  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Carl Jacobs

Shucks. You've revealed my identity and mission. I fear a recall to Rome in shame and failure! Wasn't I subtle enough?

Q: "What is a 'fundamentalist evangelical?'"

A: "A deluded heretic!"

Viking
Come on then, if you think u're 'ard enuff!

2 December 2011 at 22:38  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Viking

I don't recall you ever asking me about my views on the Jewish People.

As an educated man, you know there are different 'supersesssion' theories. Interestingly, the term 'replacement' theology is a protestant one and took off big time during the Reformation - especially the punitive, cursed of God variant.

Agreed, early Church doctors were over zealous in down playing of the place of Jews and stressed their rejection of Christ. However, there is no formal dogma nor doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church about the future role of the Chosen People of God.

Once again I can only refer you to the Cathecism of the Church:

- Gentile Christians will repent for past acts of Christian anti-Semitism and come to a greater appreciation and love of their Jewish roots;
(CCC 528)

- The Jewish people will come to a historic reconciliation with Jesus of Nazareth, Messiah of Israel and Son of God – yet without forsaking their Jewish identity, culture, and heritage; (CCC 674)

- both will be united through God’s “Ark of Salvation,” the Catholic Church.
(CCC 845)

Now, can you or one of your 'born again' buddies explain to me 'Dispensationalism' and the role of ethnic Jews and geographical Israel?

2 December 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

Think twice before speaking so of God's 2nd best creation.

Dodo,

If the Jews have been replaced by the revolting Catlicks, explain Isaiah 19 v 24.

Please don't tell me it has already passed.


PS Remember that I have been solidly taught my Bible; if you wish a war over Popey spoutings, you'll win.

You want one over the scriptures?

Be very careful.

2 December 2011 at 23:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

This 'hard enuff' stuff.

I am well aware of what I can, and occassionally still do.

I was taught that the first rule of combat was to never, ever, underestimate your enemy.

Perhaps you are the one? Y'know, the one that won? The one that gutted me?

Maybe not.


We'll see. ;-)

2 December 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Viking said ...

"If the Jews have been replaced by the revolting Catlicks, explain Isaiah 19 v 24."

Now doesn't that depend on what one means by "replaced"? The Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. It does not teach that the Jewish people themselves have been cursed or abandoned or that they are effectively irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy.

The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church. Additionally, the Church teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.

Supersessionism is the Christian belief that the covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced or superseded by the 'New Covenant' of Jesus Christ. The Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people, since God’s revealed will is for Jews, as well as Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah.

I do not understand the full significance of Isaiah 19 v 24 but if you mean God has not cast aside His Chosen people or their Promised Land, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

My starting point is the profound and mysterious passages in Romans 11 which cautions Christians against boasting and alludes to the reasons for the rejection of Christ by the Jews and their eventual acceptance of Him: " ... that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in."

2 December 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Close, but no cigar.

You admit your ignorance, and me mine.

Mahler's 5th?

Uncouth in manner I may be, but not the mind.

2 December 2011 at 23:59  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Viking

Nobody, but nobody, ever defeats us. We can only do ourselves and, by God's will, the defeat becomes a victory.

3 December 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Viking
Never really got into classical music (reverse snobbery - where I grew up, a lad just didn't). Is Mahler's 5th the one that accompanies the cigar advert?

If so, a toast to you and happy puffing.

By the way, an admission of ignorance is a sign of wisdom.

3 December 2011 at 00:12  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo said; Q: "What is a 'fundamentalist evangelical?' A: "A deluded heretic!"
Come on Dodo, you can do better than that!. A fundamentalist is someone who believes the Bible as it is written without variation.(Unlike the Missal). An evangelist is someone who spreads the word to others so that they may also know the truth of the Gospel.
'Deluded Heretic' Is one not supposed to believe what the bible says? And a heretic is one who is perceived by the proclaimer as misrepresenting the scriptures.
Having seen your rhetoric on theological issues I'm surprised you could not come up with something better as an answer.

3 December 2011 at 00:22  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Mr Integrity

So true but, in my defence, I had a couple of particular 'born again' persons in mind.

You are quite right, as Christians we are all evangelists and called to spread the message of the Gospel in ways that are accessible, truthful, doctrinally sound and consistant.

'Fundamentalist' is something rather different. A literal exrraction of passages out of context and without reference to the bible as a unitary whole. Also, without acknowledgement of what inspiration as opposed to dictation is leading to an oversight of the cultural references and limitations of the human authors. Also clinging to the dogma that if it isn't explicitly written in the bible then a belief is invalid.

3 December 2011 at 01:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 December 2011 at 06:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sorry, Dodo, but your definition is made of so much straw. I asked the question because the word 'fundamentalist' has become a multi-purpose tool that may be fashioned according to whatever purpose its wielder desires. The secularist uses it to describe anyone who believes in a knowable revelation. The liberal religionist uses it to describe those who privilege Scripture above human reason. The Roman Catholic uses it to describe anyone who places Scripture above the proclaimed authority of Rome. It's not really a word with a definition anymore. The word 'fundamentalist' has become a rock to be bounced off someone's head.

Technically a Christian 'fundamentalist' is identified by rigid anti-intellectualism and a desire for separation for the temporal world. He has responded to the challenge of modern worldviews by retreating into a hermetically-sealed world where he does not have to develop any serious counter-apologetic. Does the modern world challenge Scripture through textual variants? He asserts the infallibility of the King James Bible. Does the modern world laugh at prophesy? He finds the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation in whatever political torment currently afflicts the Middle East. Does the modern world indulge its carnal nature? He gives evidence to himself of his own righteousness through legalism. He is unable to answer the enemies arrayed against him, and so he closes his eyes and covers his ears. That is the nature of the fundamentalist. You will not find such a person on this board.

Many people would call me a 'fundamentalist' and I would accept that label according to the definition being used. But an actual fundamentalist would run me out of town as a noxious heretic.

carl

3 December 2011 at 06:26  
Blogger len said...

So the dreadful Dodo throws out another accusation' fundamentalist'which defined means 'A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles'Dodo uses this as an accusation because it sweeps away as so much garbage much of his 'religion'which he clings to as a prized possession.
'Religionists' have more in common with Atheists than with Christians.Both seek independence from God.Atheists have deified science,'religionists'go through rituals which make God unnecessary because they can 'make it on their own'(although they will never admit this fact.)
A true Christian realises the futility of religious rituals and 'good works' and is dependent on God alone for salvation.

3 December 2011 at 08:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo appears to think he's a latter day Dr Samuel Johnson with all this defining of words. I remember when he was just a simple chap with gay inclinations, so to speak. How things have changed.

3 December 2011 at 08:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr len @ 08.34, if the Dodo is truly a civil servant, the British taxpayer is getting a raw deal, judging by the number of work hours that he spends blogging. Makes you wonder if/when Dodo's superiors will start to monitor his computer records.

3 December 2011 at 08:56  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Scrap gould and send warsi,plenty of conflict and very little interest.

3 December 2011 at 09:00  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Carl
That's a bit on the harsh side. I'm not sure I was that wide of the mark. Not so eloquently written as your definition but it some of its key elements.

len
Actually I think Carl's definition pretty much suits you.

- a rigid anti-intellectualism.

- a desire for separation for the temporal world.

- retreating into a hermetically-sealed world.

- asserting the infallibility of the Bible.

- finds the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation in whatever political torment currently afflicts the Middle East.

- gives evidence to himself of his own righteousness through legalism.

- closes his eyes and covers his ears to his enemies.

Well, maybe its a little harsh but its certainly your direction of travel.

DanJ0
I know. Its a peculiar situation I find myself in and one unsuited to my care free approach. I'm going back to simpler times.

3 December 2011 at 09:12  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
There are many things that you might 'prefer' but your preference doesn`t make them true.

Take your religion just for one example.

3 December 2011 at 09:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I know. Its a peculiar situation I find myself in and one unsuited to my care free approach. I'm going back to simpler times."

I would if I were you. I can fully recommend proceeding with gay abandon in life.

3 December 2011 at 09:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Technically a Christian 'fundamentalist' is identified by rigid anti-intellectualism and a desire for separation for the temporal world. etc.

That's odd, because I'd always thought that the proper use of the term was of those who subscribed to the five fundamentals of 1910, which were articulated by conservative Protestants in the face of liberal and modernist tendencies.

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture.
The virgin birth.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

I would have thought Len would rejoice in being called a fundamentalist on such a definition. I could be wrong of course, because he keeps his precise ecclesial affiliation in the dark.

More widely, I was taught that "fundamentalist" really referred to someone whose beliefs could not be falsified by any evidence. I don't know if that definition will do (when I was taught it, I was taught that therefore everyone is a fundamentalist at some level) but again, having discussed some of Len's key doctrine's with him in the light of biblical evidence, I would have thought the title remained fitting.

3 December 2011 at 10:15  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0

I willbe adopting a gay approach tolife. Thank you, but I'll leave the abandonment bit to the sexually unrestrained. One has to maintain appropriate standards, don't you know. That's the true path to human happiness and fulfillment.

3 December 2011 at 10:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I'm expecting to be working up your way fairly soon. Can you recommend anywhere good for a gay night out? The gayer the better, really. I know you love to be gay in the evenings and at weekends.

3 December 2011 at 11:23  
Blogger len said...

Albert(@10:15)

The fundamentals you mention ;

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture.
The virgin birth.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.'

The above are the core beliefs of Christianity and I would be proud to be associated with them.If a belief in the above is being a 'fundamentalist' then that is a fitting description.

3 December 2011 at 11:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I don't have an particular problem with the fundamentals either, although I perhaps don't take "inerrancy" in the same way as those who coined the term "fundamentalist" did.

In the light of our earlier discussions, I am interested that you think these are the core beliefs of Christianity. I would have included the Trinity and the Incarnation. Do you accept those doctrines and are they not "core" Christian teaching?

3 December 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Albert

By the definition you have provided of 'fundamentalism' I would consider myself falling within its terms - with some qualifications over the meaning of its terms.

Biblical inspiration and inerrancy, yes. But what do we mean by this? Is the bible open to a literal interpretation that is carved in stone with its truth incapable of fuller understanding under the guidance from the Holy Spirit? Is each and ever person capable of fsthoming its mysteries free from error? Which translation? And what about the endless disputes over the precise meaning of words and even here punctuation marks ought to be placed?

This, I think, is where I part company with some on here. The bible is inerrant but not man's ability to translate it from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. And not his attempts at understanding the domplete fullness OF God through it or applying it to changing times and circumstances.

I'm not a 'modernist' but I also accept that the inspiration given by God was to people constrained by the limits of their individual and social circumstances. For example, would Genesis, at its very heart truth, be written in the same way today about the creation of the universe?

Another issue for me is what is meant by the term 'atonement'? This is open to several interpretations and all can be supported by biblical writings. An act of supreme self-giving Love and Mercy by God through His own preordained incarnation and suffering? Or, should there be a stress on the Justice of God with the need for sacrificial blood of His Son made man to satisfy this demand? We can all agree around 'at-one-ment' but give different emphasis to the attributes of God in this process.

So, the term doesn'treally help. And like you I'd like know more about bloggers such as len and Blofeld who dive in to criticise 'religion' with endless biblical quotes without disclosing their position on these issues.

Perhaps they might oblige today?

What's that pink,winged creature flying by my window?

3 December 2011 at 11:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What's that pink,winged creature flying by my window?"

Pink, you say.

3 December 2011 at 11:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doddy and Orifice of Inspectorate Genitalia

"Inspector

I wouldn't besmirch all protestants by associating them with len and Blofeld. These two are fundamentalist evangelicals - the scourge of all Christianity.

They are sent to try us!

'fundamentalist evangelical'
Ahh. You are both toooo kind to old Ernsty but Ta for noticing.

How is the advancement of your cultic church doing on this blog..any new takers?

Ernsty, chaps

ps

"By the way, an admission of ignorance is a sign of wisdom." Then what a wise old ignoramus you are. Consider your words duly ignored! * Chuckles madly*

Is not a double act supposed to have a straight and a funny un, not two straight's..Might just be the problem lads!

3 December 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. Don’t expect a rely from Len for some time. It’s Saturday so he’s off to town with his ‘End of the World is Nigh’ sandwich board....

3 December 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

Yes, there's definitely a definition problem with the fundamentals - however they are set out in a book of that title, so I suspect one could get some clarity there. I haven't read it, but I expect we would part company with at least some of it and thus not be fundamentalists.

Inspector,

Don’t expect a rely from Len for some time. It’s Saturday so he’s off to town with his ‘End of the World is Nigh’ sandwich board....

That's interesting, because it makes me wonder whether he keep Saturday as the Sabbath.

3 December 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, it’s you Blofeld. The Inspector hopes this new season finds you well. You were in the Inspectors thoughts recently, don’t you know...{AHEM}...

Did you know Len has seven cats ? That’s a significant number you know. They are in fact seven demons sent by Satan to help him and you deny the Christ to the world. Don’t dismiss this warning lightly, (...though you and him are probably lost to Lucifer anyway...).

Back to more cheerful mode; ‘have a nice day now’ as they say in the Americas...

3 December 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

because I'd always thought that the proper use of the term was of those who subscribed to the five fundamentals of 1910

Yes, that's the origin of the word, and that's why I typically accept the label when offered. I described those who self-identify as fundamentalist today.

Dodo

asserting the infallibility of the Bible.

You made a curious omission. I clearly made mention of asserting the infallibility of the King James Bible. King James Onlyism is a far cry from the traditional stance on Scriptural Infallibility.

carl

3 December 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I clearly made mention of asserting the infallibility of the King James Bible

Are you serious? There really are Protestants who assert the infallibility of the KJV? That really is potty. If Dodo's anything like me, he will have over-looked that part of your post on the grounds that it was - surely - hyperbole.

3 December 2011 at 13:44  
Blogger len said...

Inspector,
In the Book of Revelation the number SEVEN is used throughout. There are SEVEN churches, SEVEN Spirits, SEVEN stars, SEVEN seals, SEVEN trumpets, SEVEN vials, SEVEN personages, SEVEN dooms, and SEVEN new things. SEVEN symbolizes Spiritual Perfection. All of life revolves around this number. SEVEN is used over 700 times in the Bible. It is used 54 times in the Book of Revelation.

(not that the amount of cats that are currently residing in my home has the slightest thing to do with
this)I think you are probably thinking back to the inquisition when owning a cat(especially a black one) could earn one the death sentence?)

3 December 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ah, Tis I Blofeld, lad. Top of the world!. "You were in the Inspectors thoughts recently, don’t you know...{AHEM}..." Blast those foreign office chappies that sent you overseas, my boy. It is a know fact that those who spend more than several hours in the company of those arabian chaps tend to go errm.. ahem, *splutter* tad ' native' ..and seem to develop a taste for 'couscous'!

Uggh.

What would those nice old dears in the tea room make of this or perhaps not? Probably why no grandchildren tend to visit them, on strict instructions from Nan. Avoidance at all costs and perhaps why Danjo gets strange 'vibes' whilst conversing with you, my boy?

Toodle pip old fella.

Ernst

3 December 2011 at 13:55  
Blogger len said...

Whilst on the subject of 'infallibility',Just how infallible is the Pope?.Or should I say the Popes?.

3 December 2011 at 13:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. 3 December 2011 13:54 The Inspector is not fooled for a second. Those CATS made you type that out...

3 December 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. The Inspectors loyalty to God, Queen and Country has never been questioned. Quite immune to Johnny Foreigners influence.

Haven’t been to the tea rooms since the ‘rimming’ disaster (...damn that DanJ0 and his ideas...), when the old dears set upon the Inspector with their brollies...

3 December 2011 at 14:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

There really are Protestants who assert the infallibility of the KJV?

Do a search on Peter Ruckman, or perhaps Gail Riplinger. Here she is on the connection between the NIV and the Sinking of the Titanic. Yes, I said the Sinking of the Titanic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNyH5A_OZs8

This is a reaction to modernist attacks on Scripture. They mistake infallibility for an infallible text, but they don't know how to address textual variants. So they invent an infallible text by asserting the textual infallibility of the KJV. Some go so far as to claim it was a re-inspiration. (Ironic given that most KJVists are Free Church while the translation rules for the KJV specified that no translation should impact the established ecclesiology of the CoE.) Do they understand the history of the Textus Receptus? Do they understand no such manuscript existed prior to the 1500's? No. Now do you see why I wrote what I did?

carl

3 December 2011 at 14:23  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJO said...

"Dodo: "What's that pink,winged creature flying by my window?""

Yes pink! And it went "oink", "oink" as it flapped its wings.

Oh, in answer to your question about a venue for a gay night out, there is a place I can recommend.

Its in Govan. Protestant and Unionist and agreat laugh if you're discreet. Mind, do be careful, as they are rather keen on the "Glaswegian Kiss" - the one involving a sharpe knife and the anus. Nasty. (I'm being serious!) You'd be far better off visiting Edinburgh. They have plenty of bright, dainty areas.

3 December 2011 at 14:42  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

len
Actually you've got your word count wrong on the number 7. Now go back to the beginning and start the count again.Precision is so important in this.

Why aren't you in the High Streeet? Or is Albert correct and you regard Saturday as the Sabbat - oh, sorry Sabbath?

Seven cats!

I met a man with seven sacks
Every sack had seven cats
Every cat had seven kits


Blofeld

You're in a bonny mood this morning. Have they changed your medication? Don't stray too far from the commode, now. Accidents can happen.

3 December 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Mind, do be careful, as they are rather keen on the "Glaswegian Kiss" - the one involving a sharpe knife and the anus."

I have to say that doesn't sound much like a place one can have a gay time. What you describe is very 'queer', though exactly the sort of place a character with morals like you might like I expect. I appreciate your attempt to rehome the word 'gay', though I think you'll end up in trouble when most of the population will be thoroughly confused by it, but I'm not sure you're the best person to try to do that if you don't even know what it originally meant.

3 December 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Truly amazing! I can well understand why some people may prefer the KJV or even argue that in some respects more recent translations are inferior, but inspired? infallible? or (which is truly dreadful) saying the mistakes are advanced revelation!

3 December 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0
So pleased you are beginning to use the Queen's English correctly.

Next time you're asked about or volunteer your sexual proclivities, I trust you'll say homosexual. And its good to see you using the word queeer properly too. Blow away all those bad thought patterns. I'm sure there is a basket of words we'll be able to identify.

Do keep up the good work. It's always good to improve on one's verbal and oral performance. Before longwemay be able to straighten you out.

3 December 2011 at 16:21  
Blogger len said...

Perhaps you too Dodo, Got serious concerns about you,
Perhaps Albert needs to have a quiet word with you?.

3 December 2011 at 16:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Next time you're asked about or volunteer your sexual proclivities, I trust you'll say homosexual."

I use both gay and homosexual pretty much interchangably, Dodo. Is it all Papists that have a problem with the word gay for homosexual or just gay Papists like you? I'd like to know if it's yet more popish nonsense or just Dodo silliness.

3 December 2011 at 17:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Seven cats in the household ! If the constant whiff of cat’s piss gets you down (...and you wonder why you are friendless...), here’s a tip from the Inspector. Lift each cat by the tail gently and rub some lavender oil into their behinds. Do this for every cat, and every day. Best done without wearing gloves. The cats like it too, and if you forget, they will remind you by carrying the oil in their months and dropping it at your feet...

3 December 2011 at 17:33  
Blogger len said...

you seem to be getting a bit obsessive about cats inspector?.

Suggest you get out a bit more often?
Perhaps you could accompany Dodo on one of his expeditions, don`t dress too gay though might get him excited!.

3 December 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. you seem to be getting a bit obsessive about cats inspector?. says man with 7 cats ! By the way, Dodo is no bummer. Got that ?

3 December 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "By the way, Dodo is no bummer. Got that ?"

Just very gay at times, apparently.

3 December 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I don't suppose that I could trouble you for an answer to my question about the Trinity and the incarnation, could I?

3 December 2011 at 19:14  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0, I am gay at times. I just feelvery happy and joyful when in good company.

len, have you no pals? You know guys you go out with for a pint and a laugh? Have you just revealed something about yourself?

And do answer Albert's question.

Inspector, "bummer" means bad luck, doesn't it? Little weasle is very busy tonight.

3 December 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
The Trinity. The Bible makes it clear that the Godhead consists of three persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. However, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible makes it clear that God is One. So, God, in His essence, is One God.

3 December 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. ‘Bummer’ is what they called you at school if you displayed homosexual tendencies. Len is getting worse, showing signs of believing he’s God’s representative on earth...

3 December 2011 at 20:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks Len. What do you believe about the incarnation?

3 December 2011 at 20:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, is there a catchy name for someone hoisted by their own petard? I think Dodo needs a new moniker, you see.

3 December 2011 at 21:43  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Inspector

At my school they were called "bum boys" (apologies for the crudity Mr ABC but the correct use of language is a serious matter). The word "bummer" is more regularly and properly used as meaning bad fortune as in "what a bummer".

DanJ0

That's a queer observation. I'm more than content with my moniker.

3 December 2011 at 21:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. The Inspector can see what the bird is trying to do, but the word has too many connotations to maintain a dual meaning. Tis a lost cause, and it sits uncomfortably in it’s old usage...

3 December 2011 at 21:56  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

len said ...

"The Bible makes it clear that the Godhead consists of three persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit."

Where is it made clear in the bible? It took 300 plus years for the Christian Church to settle this one and even today some churches don't accept it?

Do carry on with your response about the Incarnation.

3 December 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger Dodo's Queer Gay Way said...

Inspector and DanJ0

Any better?

3 December 2011 at 22:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm still thinking the "homophile" thing was what Dodo no doubt calls a Freudian Slip when he's pretending to be something important in psychology. With the rest of this stuff too, I'd say there's something of an over-compensation going on. Switches like that sometimes happen, I'm told, when men have mid-life crises and begin to doubt themselves. It may not be too late yet to buy an inappropriately large motorbike or a garish open-topped sports car in order to fend it off, you know.

3 December 2011 at 22:22  
Blogger Dodo's Queer Gay Way said...

DanJ0
Do you know what your talking about? Let's not open up a discussion about Frued represssed sexual drives, the Oedipal conflict and homosexuality.

There was a time when transplanting testicles from heterosexual men into homosexual men was tried in an attempt to change their sexual orientation. It didn't work.

You know about "switching" then? Interesting.

3 December 2011 at 23:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. How about ‘Dodo the Dude’ with a picture of a Dodo !

3 December 2011 at 23:07  
Blogger Gez Lawson said...

This is ridiculous. Flynn can't even ask the question without you wolves calling him "anti-Semite". Do you know it's traditional to spit on Christians in Israel; a country that grades people according to racial purity?

3 December 2011 at 23:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Patient: “I do believe my hearing is playing up”
GP: “What are the symptoms”
Patient: “A cartoon family from America”

3 December 2011 at 23:19  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 December 2011 at 00:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 December 2011 at 00:37  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Very amusing!

Nah - I'll keep the Rainbow Fish for now.

4 December 2011 at 00:41  
Blogger len said...

Albert, The Gospel of John verses 1-15 answer your question.

4 December 2011 at 00:42  
Blogger len said...

Dodo , the first few verses of Genesis indicate the Father, the Word and the Spirit.

The Written Word(the Bible)which you refuse to acknowledge in its entirety...and hold parts of it in contempt is the testimony to the Living Word........ Christ.

4 December 2011 at 00:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"The Written Word(the Bible)which you refuse to acknowledge in its entirety...and hold parts of it in contempt is the testimony to the Living Word........ Christ."

Now that is an outrageous untruth and you are so deluded can you cannot see it as such.

I hold your misperceptions and twisted understanding of scripture in contempt.

4 December 2011 at 01:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Gez Lawson proclaimed, Do you know it's traditional to spit on Christians in Israel; a country that grades people according to racial purity?

Just an error you've generated by generalizing from personal experience, Gez. It's actually permissible, indeed it's a statutory requirement set out by the International Law Commission, to spit on you, and only on you, in any place and at any time. (Vide Article 26.6, General Assembly in resolution 174 (II) of December 1955 and 36/39 of 18 November 1981.) It must suck to be you.

4 December 2011 at 04:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, you have my grudging respect for trying to hold out against word meaning changes in the English language. Tackling both gay and queer at the same time, though...whilst flitting about as a rainbow-coloured cartoon fish with the name of an extinct bird of Mauritius...may be a little too much even for you. Easier if you try to reverse the Great Vowel Shift, I'd say.

You're playing a dangerous identity game too. If you succumb in this battle, we won't hold it against you and it won't be the end of the world for you either. There are solutions; I have a business colleague, Greg D., who travels on business to the UK all the time and he has this funny thing for chaps with British accents. He'll take any variation, but if you can pull a respectable "Oxbridge"...

4 December 2011 at 04:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Dodo, you have my grudging respect for trying to hold out against word meaning changes in the English language."

It must take a lot of effort too. No doubt when the teenagers around him used to say things they were impressed with were 'wicked', he was off like a shot to check in the online Catechism. As I'm sure everyone knows, cultural Marxists were trying to make evil generally acceptable by encouraging teenagers to invert the meaning of the word. A cunning and dastardly plan, it has to be said.

4 December 2011 at 07:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

Len, Albert,

Re: Old Testament Trinty.

I have only briefly scanned some of the comments so this may have been covered before.
There is a view that the Trinity is implied in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) based on the fact that there are two words for "One" in Hebrew. "Echad" is one of parts, or compound one. Also in "They became one flesh---". "Yachid" is absolute one; As in "Isaac, my only son---".
There is a lot of discussion, for and against, online. It makes intersting reading.
Perhaps Avi can explain.
BTW. Having just flown our three precious cats back from California to the UK I claim membership in The Staunchly Protestant Cat Lovers Assoc. of this forum.
It is an observation of mine that couples with two or more cats rarely get divorced.

4 December 2011 at 08:15  
Blogger len said...

IanCad,
thanks for your comments.The Trinity is indeed a difficult subject and there are many conflicting views.The Trinity is not mentioned in Scripture but God quite definitely says that He is One,(no other Gods)
In Genesis God spoke(the Word)and the Spirit moved.(Which indicates three)
.........
I think you can assess peoples characters by the way they respond to animals, also animals sense this and respond accordingly.

4 December 2011 at 08:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Well putting together all your comments, you must believe, as the Reformers did, that Mary is Mother of God - not as an honorific title for her, but as a way of defending the incarnation.

There are of course, other OT passages that Christians take to be Trinitarian for example Genesis 18. But I don't think the matter is that obvious, as the Jews didn't believe in the Trinity until the incarnation.

4 December 2011 at 10:08  
Blogger len said...

Albert, I see where you are going with this one!.
But; the Catholic church has given hundreds of titles to Mary the Mother of Jesus. Of all of them 'Mother of God' is one of the most common when referring to Mary. This title seems logical when one considers that Jesus is God and Mary gave birth to him. In other words, from a Catholic’s perspective a syllogism could be erected to read as follows:
Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus’ mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

The whole of Scripture shows Jesus is God, who became a man. This truth is the simple answer to the syllogism error. Hence, it should be revised in the initial premise to read: Jesus is God, who became man. But by stating only a partial truth about Jesus’ identity people have got a fallacious idea about Mary. This in turn has led to the unscriptural title about Mary being the mother of God and worse—trusting in her for salvation. This additional fact about Jesus being man helps us to rightly conclude that Mary was the mother of his humanity or of the man Christ Jesus. This is why we never read in the Bible that she is the mother of God, but only that she is Jesus’ mother or the mother of Jesus, as identified in Scripture:
'Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.' (Mark 3:31)
Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. '(Luke 8:19)

'They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. '(Acts 1:14)

4 December 2011 at 11:26  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

No problem with "wicked" at all. I do so regret the use of the word "gay" to normalise perversion. How and when did this travesty occur? Any idea? Probably one of those infamous American west coast 'bath houses' responsible for a whole other noxious toxin.

Avi

Lol. I'm withdrawing from this particular fray.

It just got too confusing. I'm sticking with the Rainbow Fish. This shift in meaning and the corruption that accompanies it is evil and creeps up on one. "Gay" indeed to be locked into a perverted and disordered lifestyle. I'll use the term "Misery" for the homosexual rights movement.

Hold on ... there's an idea!

4 December 2011 at 11:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

IanCad said, "Perhaps Avi can explain."

Nice of you to think of me, Mr Cad, but uh-uh, no thanks. Avi is a poor scholar with a lousy Hebrew, a distinct preference for the Maimonidean approach rationalistic (not to mention a taste for shmaltz herring and single malts on the Sabbath), with an advanced and incurable allergy to the mystical and overly philosophical, a fellow who understandably avoids discussions on scripture and faith outside of his synagague and study circle. Avi goes with the undeniably unitarian interpretations, as understood, defended and established by the Sages of the past and the Orthodox rabbinic authorities of the present. Much in the same way he treats medicine when it comes to him and his: Unlike some of his accomplished relatives in the medical and academic fields, Avi is but a simple and jolly trucker who by fate and necessity doffs his workman's cap and grabs his longish forelocks to the conventional and certified mainstream medical establishments, squinting at all others with a jaundiced and at times, a reddish eye.

4 December 2011 at 11:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I do so regret the use of the word "gay" to normalise perversion."

It's a perversion by definition based on Papist thinking. This is where you go wrong when you over-extend your religious views to include everyone whether or not they have signed up with your death cult, and it is why Catholics need to kept at bay in the UK as far as political power goes. It was ever thus, I'm afraid, as our bloody history shows when the Catholic Church's evil prevailed. At least the Church of England at its core maintains a reasonableness and an understanding of its prviliged position in society.

4 December 2011 at 12:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Actually, its a perversion based on biblical teaching.

That really isn't a complimentary remark about the Church of England!

At least with Roman Catholicism one knows where one stands on moral issues. No bent straws or compromises with the 'Miserable Rights' movement.

4 December 2011 at 13:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"Jesus is God, who became man."

So you don't accept the hypostatic union defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451? This declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person.

Was Jesus was truely God and truely man.

4 December 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "At least with Roman Catholicism one knows where one stands on moral issues."

Like with Islam: By definition, morally wrong. Being nominally Catholic, you're part of the Whore of Babylon. Of course, to me all religion is false but your Church is a particularly unpleasant example of religion. You fit in there rather well it has to be said.

4 December 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Why thank you for acknowledging I am a Roman Catholic and that its truths are consistent with my outlook.

Are you starting to become a fan of len? You seem to be adopting some of his terminology. 'Whore of Babylon' and 'all religion is false', indeed!

If I were you I'd ask him what he thinks about homosexual acts. Like all Christians, he'll say he accepts the person but not their behaviours. Not having a set of religious doctrines as such, too 'religious', he may even share with you the various inerrant scriptural Judeo-Christian passages that confirm the Vatican's position.

And you really ought to know that Islam is a bastardised mix of Judiasm and Christianity constructed by a crazy man. Have you ever read the read the Koran, Old Testament or the New Testament? If you have you'll see this clearly.

4 December 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, as I have said previously, Catholicism, Islam, etc, they're all essentially the same to me: institutionalised and perverted views of our reality designed for hegemonic reasons. This is why I am happy to play along here exchanging insults for a laugh, Catholic ideology means nothing to me even when it is expressed in a godly way, let alone the way you express it. It has no intellectual or practical hold over me.

4 December 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hey Dodo, if you ever get bored playing at being a Catholic then I reckon you'd be quite suited to being a Muslim cleric instead. I spotted this on the Beeb the other day about removed the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia.

The language in the referenced report could have been written by you, such is its hysterical silliness. Look: "The report contains graphic warnings that letting women drive would increase prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce."

Typical religious nutters trying to control how people behave, you see. This is what happens when abnormal people try to pervert our collective thinking in religious ways when we'd rather just get on in life.

4 December 2011 at 15:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"It (Catholic ideology) has no intellectual or practical hold over me."

You really are picking up bad lessons on here from our little friend. Catholicism is an expression of Christian truth and has associated doctrines and dogmas. Christianity will only affect you intellectually and practically when you open your heart to the truth. Then it wont be a hold over you but a freedom you discover.

There's nothing in the Judeo-Christian texts forbidding women driving. However,len, who appears to understand these things better, may have spotted a prohibition or prophesy somewhere about this.

I've told you, Islam is a bastardisation of Judaism and Christianity.

4 December 2011 at 15:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Catholicism is an expression of Christian truth and has associated doctrines and dogmas. Christianity will only affect you intellectually and practically when you open your heart to the truth."

Dodo, the problem you have is that you cannot demonstrate the truth of it at all. Just like Islam, it's merely a religious belief set institutionalised so that it appeals in particular to those who need special support or guidance on things that really ought to be intuitive for normal people. This is probably why the Catholic Church seems to attract the types of people it does. It's probably why you flirt with it too: you don't have a naturally moral character and need an external prop together with the means to confess on a regular basis to 'sins' and be 'forgiven by proxy' by a father figure to feel better about yourself.

4 December 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I see you've resorted to cutting and pasting from an "Evangelicals Against the Incarnation" website to try to deal with the problem (not that all Evanglicals are against the incarnation - but your teachers are (in probably without knowing it though).

This is why we never read in the Bible that she is the mother of God, but only that she is Jesus’ mother or the mother of Jesus

Well, you said earlier on that The Bible makes it clear that the Godhead consists [sic] of three persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit....So, God, in His essence, is One God. But the Bible never uses the language of "essence" in relation to God, nor does it speak of persons (it sort of does in Heb.1.3, but not in a way that would enable us to say God is three persons). Therefore, the lack of mention of the title "Mother of God" by itself proves nothing (unless you are content to deny the Trinity as well as the incarnation). BTW it certainly never says God "consists" of anything (especially not three persons). To do so, would be to become a tritheist.

it should be revised in the initial premise to read: Jesus is God, who became man

There are two possibilities here. Either (i) he is God who became man and while still remaining God, or (ii) in becoming man he ceased to be God. But in (i) Mary is still Mother of God whereas in (ii) Jesus is not God. So, as I have tried to indicate, you cannot deny the title "Mother of God" without also denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Your syllogism had it right.

Mary being the mother of God and worse—trusting in her for salvation

Your teachers are ignorant. Catholic teaching does not say that Mary is the source of our salvation (except in the sense that Jesus is our salvation and he came from her - do you deny that?). On the contrary, as we celebrate this week, Mary is the person who is pre-eminently saved by Jesus.

As usual though Len, the question is why, if you are so right about Mary, do we find a different teaching among the Reformers? Here's Luther:

In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them…Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born in Bethlehem but of Him who, before, the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God

You say:

This additional fact about Jesus being man helps us to rightly conclude that Mary was the mother of his humanity or of the man Christ Jesus.

But surely, a moment's reflection on our salvation and the person of Christ tells us that there is no man Jesus who is not also God. There is no son of Mary alongside the Son of God. You (or rather, your teachers) are confessing a doctrine of two Sons - a divine Son of God and another human son on earth. How is that the incarnation? What unites this divine Son with the human son? Is not the very basis of our hope that they are in fact one and the same person, made known in two natures?

The doctrine that Mary is Mother of God means: Mary is Mother of God in his humanity. Separate his humanity from his divinity in order to deny the title to Mary and you deny divinity to Christ and salvation to the whole of humanity.

I have noticed in the past that you would rather violate the teaching of scripture than accept Catholic teaching. But here you deny everything: the divinity of Christ and salvation of the world, just so you do not have to admit that the Catholic Church is right about the incarnation (and therefore about Mary).

But you don't have to be a Catholic to confess Mary is Mother of God. You just have to be a Christian. But you are getting this from your teachers. Listen then to the Teacher himself: Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.

4 December 2011 at 16:13  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: you mean ''Islam is a bastardisation of Judaism and Christianity'' constructed by ONE very doubtful character and his apostate Christian scribe?

4 December 2011 at 16:15  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ok, change ''apostate'' for 'disgruntled, embittered chancer'.

4 December 2011 at 17:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
Whatever.
Couple of fecking nutters if you prefer!

len
Do you acknowledge the hypostatic union?

This teaches that in Christ two natures, God and man, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person.

Jesus was truely God and truely man.

What do your websites say on this question?

4 December 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger len said...

Albert , the 'Catholic Mary 'is an invention.

I do not know whether you genuinely do not understand what I am saying or you are being deliberately evasive.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus`s Humanity.I do not know how I can make that any clearer?.

If you wish to play word games to make a point it just shows me that you are being deliberately deceptive.

The Catholic 'Mary' is merely a pagan Goddess introduced into Catholicism, a papal invention, the' Queen of Heaven' has nothing to do with Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ.

The Bible actually bans all Christians from using the name'Queen of Heaven' It provokes God to anger.

Jeremiah 7:18
'The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.'

The Catholic claims for' Mary 'are absolutely outrageous.

I think it pointless giving you scriptures as the Catholic Church just makes things up and then claims they are 'infallible.'

4 December 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. You’re a fool sir. Jeremiah predates Mary. Obviously there was no Queen of Heaven is his time...

4 December 2011 at 21:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

That is an extraordinary comment, even by your standards.

If you wish to play word games to make a point it just shows me that you are being deliberately deceptive.

Considering the importance and the profundity of the incarnation that is, quite simply, a disgraceful thing to say. It also falls on your own pate. For you began (or rather the website you copied began) with a perfectly correct syllogism. You then messed it up by drawing not a distinction between the humanity and divinity of Christ, but a division. That is playing with words, if you wish then to say you believe in the incarnation, that is, in the divinity of Christ. And this because, (it is appalling to have to say this to someone who claims to be a Christian), you would prefer to separate Jesus from his divnity than allow that Mary is Mother of God. The doctrine I gave you is simply the doctrine Christians of all shades have accepted.

Your perfidity towards your Saviour, is so shocking, that even though you have been accused of denying his divinity, you have not defended it. Here then is the doctrine you need: what is born of Mary is human, who is born of Mary is God the Son. Thus, as the who is God, Mary is, in this sense, Mother of God. Deny this, and you deny that God died for you. Deny that, and you of all men are most to be pitied. If you will not accept this from me, you could at least accept this from Luther, but your hatred for Catholicism apparently exceeds your love for Christ.

Jeremiah 7.18 is not referring to Mary, but to a pagan goddess going by the name of Queen of Heaven. It is quite irrelevant.

Len, if I have written with unusual firmness in this comment, it is for this reason only: your comment is utterly offensive to me, not because I am a Catholic (I am used to your ignorant condemnations and I hope I am patient with them) but because I am a Christian. Insult the Church if you must, but never insult Christ while claiming to be his disciple. If you cannot confess the incarnation, if you will not defend our Lord's divinity, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

It is evident from your constant need to cut and paste that you do not know even your own doctrines, let alone those of the people you condemn so freely. You should be careful therefore what you condemn. While condemning the doctrine of the incarnation you have over-looked the tritheistic suggestion that God "consists of three persons". What on earth do you think God is? some kind of material thing made of bits? The doctrine that God consists of three persons is the doctrine that you should have condemned.

4 December 2011 at 21:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Apologies Len, I wrote "perfidity" I mean "perfidy"!

4 December 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Mary is the Mother of Jesus`s Humanity.I do not know how I can make that any clearer?"

It's very clear what you're saying over here. *shrug*

4 December 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 18:12

Thank you, I do prefer; I bow to your superior description Sir.

4 December 2011 at 22:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Finally the shallowness of the theology of the websites you surf has been revealed.

In your pathetic attack on the Church you have demonstrated an ignorance of both the nature of God and the extent of the miracle of the Incarnation.

In trying to insult the Church by denigrating its recognition of Mary as the Mother of the Christ, both man and God, you have shown yourself to be an apostate.

It's a shame it isn't all written out for you in plain, simple terms in the bible. Just remember the bible, written under inspiration and not dictated, consists of mysteries and hidden depths that slowly unfold. Inerrant yes, but subject to human error in interpretation. Revelation is complete; our understanding is organic and collective as a Church community.

DanJ0

It's clear to you because your new found friend isn't actually presenting Christianity.

His position is more akin to Hindi or Budhist teachings.

He's just denied the Divinity Jesus the Christ and contradicted the Christian belief in the unity and equality of the Three Persons of our Triune God.

4 December 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
On reflection, maybe I was a wee bit harsh!

Afterall, wasn't the tosh in the Koran dictated by an angel? It's that creature who should have his wings torn off and be cast into Hell.

What could the poor feckers do? If an angel visited you, I bet you'd do as you were told - unless you spotted who it really was.

4 December 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger len said...

Albert , as I have stated Mary is Not the Mother of God this is a heretical statement.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus exactly as Jesus claimed.
'While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mat 12:46-50)

As I have said the Catholic 'Mary is an 'invention'.There are absolutely no scriptures which state:
that we are to go to Mary to get to Jesus,
that she is a co-redeemer,
that she is to be prayed trusted venerated.
Perpetual virgin..etc.

The divinity of Christ is without question!

Your manoeuvring to try and twist scriptures and remarks is truly satanic and worthy of your master.

I though you were a 'cut above 'the likes of Dodo and the Inspector. I expect low remarks from them but I suppose you are all fruit from the same rotten tree!

4 December 2011 at 23:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

You've changed the subject matter.

What say you on the Trinity, the unity and equality of the Three Persons of God? What say you on the Incarnation where Jesus of Nazereth had two natures in one, indivisably both God and man?

You have also revealed an ignorance about actual Catholic doctrine and teaching on Our Blessed Lady Mary.

What a confused outlook you have.

5 December 2011 at 00:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "He's just denied the Divinity Jesus the Christ and contradicted the Christian belief in the unity and equality of the Three Persons of our Triune God."

Oh I don't think so. Dodo, what is going on here is called sophistry. If I were Len then I'd just walk away as there are no horns of an actual dilemma to be impaled upon here.

5 December 2011 at 05:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Now you're hardly in a position to know, are you?

What he's afraid of, I suspect, is that once you accept the hypostatic union you're logically having to accept the consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. You're also into the territory of seperated Christian communities subsisting in the Roman Catholic Church as the one Body of Christ.

Not sophistry - it goes to the heart of one's belief in the Gospel message.

5 December 2011 at 12:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

It is not really all that surprising that the title "Mother of God" is not found in the NT. After all, Jesus is hardly ever addressed as "God". This absence proves nothing.

Mary is titled "Mother of my Lord" in Lk.1.43. Now, after the incarnation, how many Lords are there? Moreover, surely the title "Lord" is used to convey something of the divine name in the OT. Do you see how you are prising the humanity of Christ from his divinity?

The divinity of Christ is without question!

In scripture yes, but not in your theology. You confess it, but then evacuate it of content, because it is more important to you to deny the Lord's Mother than to affirm her Son. So here's my question: did God die for you on the cross?

You say the title "Mother of God" is heretical. Was Luther a heretic?

Your manoeuvring to try and twist scriptures and remarks is truly satanic and worthy of your master.

Well then, listen to Calvin on the question of the incarnation:

Elizabeth calls mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.

Is that not precisely the doctrine I have given you and which you have condemned as "truly satanic"?

If you will not hear Calvin, here's Zwingli:

It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.

If you will not hear Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, perhaps you will listen to Gabriel himself for he says:

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Now, understand this. I did not learn this doctrine as a Catholic, but as a Protestant. Think it possible, if only because the Reformers have the same doctrine, that the doctrine I am teaching, and which you have condemned as Satanic may indeed be that which God has revealed.

Think about it Len. It's no good trying to find some tritheists to get you out of this (just because they call themselves "Evangelical"). If you cannot work it out for yourself, you need to rely on others. Why accept the comments of a few tritheists over Luther, Calvin and Zwingli?

I was truly annoyed last night, because you had insulted my Lord. But I am calmer today. Think it possible that I am writing out of kindness that you may at least believe what your own tradition has taught about Jesus.

5 December 2011 at 14:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 22.27 : dictated by an angel to old Mo, but not to his scribe; he got it 'second hand' as it were, old Mo being illiterate etc.

5 December 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Now you're hardly in a position to know, are you?"

Why? Have you got it solely through revelation?

5 December 2011 at 17:44  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
Jesus Christ the man is the Son Of Mary.The second person of the Trinity is Her God not her Son.

The second person of the trinity is an eternal being having neither a beginning or an ending.

I am also insulted by your allegation that I have denied the divinity of Christ which is totally unfounded.

5 December 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Jesus Christ the man is the Son Of Mary.The second person of the Trinity is Her God not her Son....I am also insulted by your allegation that I have denied the divinity of Christ which is totally unfounded

Can you not see the contradiction here? Calvin could, so could Luther and Zwingli. They would have said you were denying the divinity of Christ. But apparently, you are the only person to whom the gospel has come.

Of course the Second Person of the Trinity is her God, be he also becomes her Son as man.

Please answer this simple question: did the Second Person of the Trinity die for you?

5 December 2011 at 18:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Do some reading on the Communicatio Idiomatum.

Here's a clue:

"Christ was twofold; he was man in what was visible; he was God in what was invisible. He ate, as being really man like us (for he had the feelings of the flesh just as we have); but he fed the five thousand with five loaves, as being God.

He died, as being really man; but as God he raised the body four days dead."

"Religion does not allow us to worship the mere man, and it is not true reverence to speak of him as God only, separate from his manhood. For if Christ is God (as he truly is) but did not take manhood, we are aliens from salvation.

Let him be worshipped as God, but let it be believed that he also became man. For it is of no avail to call him man, without his divinity; and we do not receive salvation if we fail to acknowledge his manhood together with his Godhead."

(St. Cyril of Jerusalem)

5 December 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

For all this stuff about mystical unions, I'm more intrigued about the genetics. Did Mary contribute none, half, or all of the DNA?

5 December 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

Religion does not allow us to worship the mere man

Exactly. Unless Jesus the man is the Second Person of the Trinity, it is idolatrous to worship him. But if he is the Second Person of the Trinity, then Mary is Mother of God.

Did Mary contribute none, half, or all of the DNA?

The whole of Christ's humanity came from Mary. Quite how the DNA works I don't know - if it was an exact copy of hers he would be her twin. So presumably the Virginal Conception involves some kind of genetic modification.

5 December 2011 at 21:29  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said...

"For all this stuff about mystical unions, I'm more intrigued about the genetics. Did Mary contribute none, half, or all of the DNA?"

God alone knows!

He is not constrained by His creation so who really knows how this wonderful Incarnation took place? We know it involved Mary the woman and the Holy Spirit, God.

Albert's first sentence is correct. He may be right when he speculates thereafter:

The whole of Christ's humanity came from Mary. Quite how the DNA works I don't know - if it was an exact copy of hers he would be her twin. So presumably the Virginal Conception involves some kind of genetic modification."

Catholics believe Mary was born Immaculate, without original sin. So her humanity was without stain.

We can all have views and opinions on this. At the end of the day, how can we know and does the actual mechanics of the Miracle matter significantly?

5 December 2011 at 22:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "We can all have views and opinions on this. At the end of the day, how can we know and does the actual mechanics of the Miracle matter significantly?"

I think it does, actually. Mary doesn't have to be special at all. In fact, there's nothing stopping using Mary just as a surrogate mother or even the incarnation just miraculously popping into existence in her arms. However, the bible tries to establish Mary's genealogy, presumably to tick the box about Jesus being of the House of David but without the curse. Obviously for an atheist reader like me, that's just craftmanship as it serves a clear narrative purpose.

As for stains on humanity, I'd have thought Len would argue that the stain is essentially a spiritual one rather than a biological one. That is, the mystical union took place in the spirit. If Jesus had decided in Gethsemane not to go ahead then wouldn't he have died naturally at some point? He obviously aged over time. The real risk of temptation suggests it wasn't just god's nature operating in the mind there.

I'm just opening a few doors here, or perhaps pointing to their being open, since you're trying to herd Len from the sidelines. It has a narrative purpose that Mary was 'pure'. It has both a narrative purpose and a practical one that Mary is a particularly good mother and a particularly good person given the human nature in the union. She can surely be just that though without necessarily contributing in some core way to the mystical union itself.

6 December 2011 at 06:23  
Blogger len said...

Albert, I think now I see where the Catholic error lies.
What you(Catholics) have done (wittingly or not) is to have elevated'Mary' into the Godhead.
In Catholic theology 'Mary' can now do(apparently)all the things that God can do?.
That is presumably why the Catholic claims for 'Mary' are being made?.

6 December 2011 at 08:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Len

We do not elevate Mary to the Godhead. As I have said, in Catholic theology, she needs to be redeemed - does God need to be redeemed? Mary clearly cannot do all the things God can do, she cannot, for example create ex nihilo or remain sinless without grace. Your accusations are totally unfounded. Why do you even say that we elevate her to the Godhead? What's your evidence?

Here's the question you need to address: is her Son the same person as the Second Person of the Trinity?

Now why don't you ever address these questions?

6 December 2011 at 09:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Mary doesn't have to be special at all. In fact, there's nothing stopping using Mary just as a surrogate mother or even the incarnation just miraculously popping into existence in her arms.

What are these two claims based on? Mary does have to be special, because the logic of God's holiness is that he cannot have any fellowship with sin. So we read in St Paul:

For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

and in the book of Job we read:

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.

Thus, when you consider that what comes from Mary is God himself, it follows that she must be spotlessly clean. The reason Protestants don't accept this is because they don't know their Bibles well enough (as usual though, the modern Protestant disagrees with his founder - Luther had the same doctrine of Mary that we do).

As to the idea of surrogacy - well, in theory Mary could have been carrying the Son of God conceived by another woman, but the Son of God must be conceived by a woman in order to be man.

If Jesus had decided in Gethsemane not to go ahead then wouldn't he have died naturally at some point?

Well that's a bit like saying if there were a highest prime number it would be greater than 7.

However, the bible tries to establish Mary's genealogy

There are two genealogies and they both terminate on Joseph, not Mary.

mystical union

It's not a mystical union - it's a hypostatic one.

6 December 2011 at 09:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Albert has asked you for answers to the following questions:

"Is Mary's Son the same person as the Second Person of the Trinity?"

"Did the Second Person of the Trinity die for you?"

Once you work out the answers you will appreciate the special veneration given to Blessed Mary as a woman and mother.

Do you have issues accepting the the Hypostatic Union and Communicatio Idiomatum?

These are not expressly Roman Catholic teachings and are at the heart of Christian beliefs.

6 December 2011 at 16:59  
Blogger Albert said...

These are not expressly Roman Catholic teachings and are at the heart of Christian beliefs.

Exactly, normally the only "Christians" who deny them are incarnation denying, Virgin Birth denying, resurrection denying, Myth of God Incarnate, kinds of liberals.

In fairness to Len, it is hard to have to try to work it out for yourself. It took the Church many centuries even to develop a language to begin to express it. But all that shows is the hopelessness of trying to be a Christian without the years of accumulated wisdom in tradition. He's a good advert for Catholicism is our Len - in a strange sort of way.

6 December 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

I do agree.

The 'liberals' are destroying the faith by undermining the foundation of basic dogma and doctrine and replacing this with an experiential, non-rational opinion.

On the other hand is the extreme represented by len and others denying any 'religious' authority that deminishes the individual's power to interpret scripture.

No wonder belief in Christ and the Church is on the decline!

6 December 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger len said...

I think(know) that Catholic' theology' has caused endless problems in Christianity,if the Catholic church had stuck with the original gospel without corrupting it then there would have been no problem(and no Protestants and no divisions)so Catholic error has spawned all these problems.
Just a short illustration;Muslims believe(because of Catholic theology) that ALL Christians worship a 'Trinity'composed of Father son and Mary(Mother of God)

7 December 2011 at 07:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

if the Catholic church had stuck with the original gospel without corrupting it

In order to be able to make such a a statement you would need to be able, with confidence and accuracy, to identify the "original gospel". Given that you can't tell the difference between tritheism and monotheism, between the incarnation and Nestorianism, you're not really in a position to tell whether or not the Catholic Church has corrupted the original gospel.

Muslims believe a lot of weird stuff - the Qur'an has plenty of material that looks to us to be clearly garbled versions of the Bible. Is the Bible to be faulted for these Muslim errors?

We Catholics (and the overwhelming majority of Christians, including your own Reformers) are not in error concerning Mary being Mother of God, as is clear from the following:

And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Now some how or other, you think this Son of God, born of Mary is a different person from the Son of God in heaven. But this is easily refuted:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father...[16] And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace...grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18] No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

You see how "the only Son" refers to the Word made flesh? And you see how God has only one Son and this one and only Son is himself "God" (John 1.1), and you see how scripture clearly states that Mary's son is "the Son of God"? So: Mary's Son is the Son of God, there is only one Son of God, and this one Son of God is himself God. This is the doctrine you condemned as "Satanic"!

We are clearly right therefore, and as you were wrong, the question ought to arise in your mind is, What else are you wrong about? Oughtn't you to have a little more humility, and care otherwise You might even be found opposing God! (Acts 5.39)? And if you cannot work this all out for yourself, then clearly you cannot find the true Church by yourself, and thus your whole Protestant doctrine collapses.

Now if you are wrong about the incarnation, you are necessarily wrong about Mary. But if you were right about the incarnation, then noticing how darkness has no fellowship with light, you would realise that the key Catholic dogmas concerning Mary are true. But it will all look wrong until you come to a proper faith in Jesus - which you will not do while you follow tritheists just because they call themselves "Evangelicals".

7 December 2011 at 09:34  
Blogger len said...

Well Albert , I don`t think we are ever going to agree!.
The Gospel to me is exactly the same as described in the Bible.
Catholicism has add two thousand years of error to the original Gospel as their 'traditions'many which are clearly condemned in scripture. If you cannot see that and remain in denial I do not know what more I can say.
I contend that because your Catholic foundations are faulty then the WHOLE Catholic religion is built(literally) on error.
Until you have the courage to confront these Catholic errors than you will remain stumbling in the dark aided by those 'infallibles' who constructed the whole thing.

7 December 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Okay, so you think Catholicism (and on this question Luther, Calvin & Zwingli, together with just about every other kind of Christian) is in error.

I have set out the reasons for the teaching I am defending. I have expressed the logic clearly building from explicitly scriptural foundations. If I am wrong,answer the following two questions:

1. How do you refute the interpretation I gave in my previous post?
2. Why do you care anyway, considering that you side with people who believe in three gods?

7 December 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger len said...

Albert it is sad that you have now resorted to talking rubbish.

Since your arguments have failed I suppose that is all you have left?

7 December 2011 at 19:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Answer the questions:

"Is Mary's Son the same person as the Second Person of the Trinity?"

"Did the Second Person of the Trinity die for you?"

Do you have Hypostatic Union and Communicatio Idiomatum?

7 December 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Since your arguments have failed

An argument can fail in two ways. Either its premises are false or its reasoning is flawed. In order to justify your belief that my arguments have failed you must show how they have failed - according to the principles I have given. What you cannot do is assert they have failed, simply because you do not like the conclusion. All that shows is that you are more interested in nullifying the word of God in order to uphold your human tradition.

So where's the flaw in my argument? If you do not respond to this, it will be clear that you have no love of Holy Scripture - only a hatred of Catholicism.

8 December 2011 at 09:26  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
another fishing expedition?.

You seem to have a profound hate of protestants why is that?.

9 December 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger len said...

Albert, do try and get rid of that 'Dodo thing' that keeps circling around you like the albatross around the ancient Mariner(which I believe Albert was ) ha, ha, sorry I just couldn`t help that!.

9 December 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I do not have a profound hate of Protestants. To be honest, I'm not sure if I even consider you a Protestant. You are far away Luther, Calvin and Zwingli - none of whom would have entertained the incarnation denying, tritheism of your websites. Your lack of courage to uphold basic Christian teachings, and instead resort to rhetorical moves like that comment depresses me: it inspires in me no hate.

I have no difficulty with any Protestant who is prepared to die for the incarnation and unity of the Godhead - in fact, I'll settle for a Protestant who is at least prepared to defend those doctrines.

Now I asked you to show the flaw in my argument, or face the conclusion that you are no obedient to scripture. Which is it (or are you tacitly now agreeing with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli?)?

9 December 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger len said...

Albert I have already stated my position on the Trinity,

But; I found that article and wonder what your opinion of it is(I have' lifted 'this article as I cannot be bothered to type out all the words because time forbids)
as follows;

'In the past in most theological circles, a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity included a rejection of the divinity of Christ. But before this becomes classed as an Arian heresy, let me quote from Catholic theologian Karl Rahner:

". . . we must be willing to admit that should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged.... the Christian idea of the incarnation would not have to change at all if there were no Trinity."
"It is not surprising then, that Christian piety practically remembers from the doctrine of the incarnation only that 'God' has become man, without deriving from this truth any clear message about the Trinity" (The Trinity, pp. 10-12).

A rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity does not constitute a rejection of the incarnation — the divinity of Christ. In fact, what he says indicates that, for all practical purposes, the doctrine is meaningless.

9 December 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I have already stated my position on the Trinity

Yes, you think God "consists" of three persons.

I'm not surprised to hear that about Rahner. I think he went off the rails from the late 60s onwards. But your problem with the incarnation is not immediately a consequence of your problems with the Trinity.

9 December 2011 at 22:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

You left out the part of the article that dismisses the validity of the Triune God:

"Who Jesus was is clearly indicated in the pages of the Bible ... Christ is not the second person in a Trinity, and He was not created by God — HE IS THE CREATOR GOD!"

It then goes on to advance the modalist argument and dismiss the Father and the Holy Spirit as Persons of the Trinity.

Belief in the Trinity, it is argued, cannot be justified by reference to scripture - so cannot be accepted. It was all a philosophical misrepresentation that led to the creed at Nicea!

So who is Jesus Christ and His Incarnation? You've cited a modalist source for your trietheism????

9 December 2011 at 22:59  
Blogger len said...

Dodo , are you and Albert the same person, your`e not up to your old tricks again?.

I am getting very suspicious here, you seem to be stuck to him like glue(in a nice way of course)

10 December 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger len said...

Albert, Who on earth is Zwingli, are you making these names up?.

Does studying Catholic theology send many people'of the rails'like poor old Rahner? Perhaps you are going the same way Albert?.

Must remind myself to keep well clear of Catholic websites in case they pull me in like a 'Black Hole' and send me 'off the rails also'.

Bests wishes.

10 December 2011 at 20:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Sadly that's already happened and you're in a vortex of your own making.

Attempting to approach an understanding of the unfathomable nature and attributes of God requires a firm mind, a clear intellect and humility.

10 December 2011 at 21:38  
Blogger len said...

No hope for you there than Dodo?.

10 December 2011 at 21:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Zwingli was one of the great Protestant Reformers - absolutely convinced that his doctrine was biblical, and absolutely convinced that everyone else was wrong. Sound familiar? He would have condemned you as an unbiblical heretic.

Does studying Catholic theology send many people'of the rails'like poor old Rahner?

Interesting logic. By that standard Jesus would be to blame for Judas' sin. Actually, Rahner went off the rails because he departed from Catholic teaching not because he kept it.

11 December 2011 at 11:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "I am getting very suspicious here, you seem to be stuck to him like glue(in a nice way of course)"

I prefer my metaphor rather than your analogy. ;)

11 December 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Why are you talking with your alter-ego len on here?

11 December 2011 at 23:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ps
Actually, I should mock. It's quite a sweet friendship. The committed atheist homosexual and the doctrinaly barren "born againer!

11 December 2011 at 23:47  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Meant - shouldn't mock. Revealing mistake.

12 December 2011 at 01:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older