Thought For The Day - Page 2

Bombeni · #11 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nawbut";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

That's why I love that Tony Blair. Even if he is a liberal!!

And he's right: the world would be a very different place but for the American G.I.

Im not sure, JP5, if Tony Blair made that comment about Jesus and the GIs. It appears - from Bombeni's original post - that the quotation marks are closed, then Bombeni proceeds to offer a concluding 'thought' for the day.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but that seems to be the substance of it - any clarification, Bombeni?

It was sent to me in an email, so I don't know the how valid it is. I just thought it was a real day brightener, whether or not it is truly TB's words or not.

lunecat · #12 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 09:27 AM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blair.asp

the link gives a hugh long urban myth about how you go from a quote made in public to the rest of the GI and Jesus stuff

JavaBlack · #13 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunecat";p=&quot

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/blair.asp

the link gives a hugh long urban myth about how you go from a quote made in public to the rest of the GI and Jesus stuff

What's this about G.I. Jesus now? Tony Blair is manufacturing religious action figures?
Sorry. It's not embellished enough yet to be a good urban myth... Give it a couple of days on this forum.

africanhope · #14 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 09:35 AM

The Indian troops that died in Europes war? And the Canadians? And the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, etc. etc. etc. They all fought and died for other countries, other nations, other peoples freedom.

So yes, thanx sincerely American PI, and all the other provivates from all the other countries that went to a distant land to fight for what is right

lunecat · #15 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 09:45 AM

I observed the 2 minutes silence on Sunday during the ceromony at the Cenotaph. I've have friends here in Edinburgh who are the grandchldren of South African and Canadian Soldiers who fought with Britain in her hour of need

thanx

apotropoxy · #16 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" - Jesus
"Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" - Jesus
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." - Jesus

You have offered us modernized NT quotes by people who were alive a generation(s) after their hero's death. They never met the man and only had the traditions of their community to pass on. Many "quotes" of Jesus were understood by those ancient contemporaries to be the sorts of things he would have said had he thought to say them. They were never meant to be understood as literal quotes.

glitch · #17 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Quote:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" - Jesus
"Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" - Jesus
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." - Jesus

You have offered us modernized NT quotes by people who were alive a generation(s) after their hero's death. They never met the man and only had the traditions of their community to pass on. Many "quotes" of Jesus were understood by those ancient contemporaries to be the sorts of things he would have said had he thought to say them. They were never meant to be understood as literal quotes.

Actually they were written by his apostles and friends (John, Matthew, Mark) who walked, talked and lived with him. These are examples of what he actually said.

There are some today who don't like what he had to say and thus try to claim he must have had a different message than what his apostles wrote down. I trust his apostles over the modern-day revisionists. They were there.

apotropoxy · #18 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 07:18 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glitch";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by apotropoxy";p=&quot

Quote:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" - Jesus
"Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" - Jesus
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." - Jesus

You have offered us modernized NT quotes by people who were alive a generation(s) after their hero's death. They never met the man and only had the traditions of their community to pass on. Many "quotes" of Jesus were understood by those ancient contemporaries to be the sorts of things he would have said had he thought to say them. They were never meant to be understood as literal quotes.

Actually they were written by his apostles and friends (John, Matthew, Mark) who walked, talked and lived with him. These are examples of what he actually said.

Quote:

From a historical perspective, the vast majority of biblical scholars believe Mark’s Gospel to be the earliest written narrative about Jesus, written in or about 70 CE. Based largely on internal evidence, scholars give this date because of the references to the Temple’s destruction and the persecution of Christians in chapter 13. These events seem to correlate to known historical events: the second Temple was destroyed in the year 70 CE by the Roman general Titus during the Jewish Revolt, and Christians in Rome were killed in mid 60 CE by the Roman emperor, Nero. […]
Scholars date Matthew between 80 and 90 CE. If Matthew used material drawn from Mark, then some time would have elapsed while Mark was being circulated. In addition, Matthew highlights the Pharisees as Jesus’ chief opponents although this group did not become dominant until after the fall of the Temple. Possible evidence from 110 CE, a letter from a bishop in Antioch which appears to cite Matthew, suggests the Gospel text was known and circulated well before that time.

Although the author of Luke intends to write as a historian (see Luke 1:1-4) whom one might expect to give a date for his own work, Luke’s Gospel is still difficult to date. Since Luke places his writing after both the first generation of eyewitnesses and another generation of written witnesses, and since his Gospel was known and used by about 140 CE, according to other early Christian texts, a date sometime between the later decades of the first century and the first decades of the second, seems most likely.

John’s Gospel is even more complicated to date because scholars are divided on whether John draws on Mark’s Gospel, which would give a date after 70 CE. Even without a clear answer to this question, most scholars give a late first century date because of its references to Christian expulsion from the synagogue (hinted at in chapters 5 and 9) and its more elaborate theology–both developments that would seem to require some passage of time. The identity of the authors of the Gospels remains unknown: the earliest manuscripts lack any authorial identifications and the names that are associated with the respective texts seem to be ascribed by later Christians who connected the Gospels with either disciples of Jesus (Matthew; John) or followers of the apostles (Mark; Luke) in order to increase the authority of the texts.
http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/v...method=display

Quote:

There are some today who don't like what he had to say and thus try to claim he must have had a different message than what his apostles wrote down. I trust his apostles over the modern-day revisionists. They were there.

It was common in the days of the gospel writers to assume the names of important recent religious figures. They did so out of respect for their heroes and out of a very practical fear of persecution. Everyone understood and accepted this literary device. The Romans, having tired of the Jewish unrest in that province, annihilation the Hebrew state and reduced the Temple to rubble. It was a very dangerous time to be a Jew or to be closely related to them.
The revisionist movement of which you speak began in the mid-1800's. It was then that literalism was embraced and notions that the synoptic gospels were authored by contemporaries of Jesus. There is 2,000 years of scholarship to back me up.
It is you who have absorbed these erroneous revisionist traditions.
Don't believe everything you hear in Sunday school.

gadzooks · #19 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bombeni";p=&quot

Subject::Tony Blair
>
> Thought for the day:
>
> In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American
> sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister
> Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his
> Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said:
>
> "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want
> in... And how many want out." Only two defining forces have ever
> offered to die for you:

Jesus Christ and the American G.I.

Dear sir or Madam:
Can we pretend that TonyBlair was born in America and make him president in 2008 please?

I used to watch him on c-span , making "lapdogs" of the opposition parties. He is an intelligent man and absolutely correct about America being someplace nobody is running away from.That is a great Litmus test. You Brits should thank god you have such a man. (plus he gets to the seat of the problem in just a few sentences,which you Brits seem to value a great deal)

Jesus Christ and the American soldier !!! RIGHT ON

lunecat · #20 (**permalink**) 11-14-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want
in... And how many want out."

Just thought you Yanks might be interested in this

http://www.americanexpats.co.uk/
http://www.uk-yankee.com/
http://expatyank.blogspot.com/

Just incase you felt like joining the flood of your fellow Americans beating a path to live in dear old Blighty

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode