The Conservatives have claimed Good Friday

No that's incorrect Pippa. lemongrove posted yesterday @ 15.37 "he wasn't a sort of holy Jeremy Corbyn". She didn't compare Jesus to a "holy Jeremy Corbyn" she said he wasn't.

Agedp that made me laugh, I take it you were speaking metaphorically in terms of Corbyn's political career "ever coming back from the dead".

Corbyn and Jesus king of The Jews

I think you will find that is a comparison Smileless.

Not IMO.

Agedp1953, Callistemon, Anniebach my question was "would they (the Conservatives) have ended up claiming them as their own in a couple of thousand years, do you think?"

That's 2000 years of building up the story, painting him as something very, very special and talking to an audience who really have no idea of the history of our time. I think, if he had become a popular figure to follow, the remaining right-wing could indeed be trying to claim him - it would, after all, be nothing new.

So what would you call some one comparing one person to another Smileless?

Jesus wasn't painted as something very, very special he was and is very very special to Christians, and I don't agree that the right- wing have tried to claim him. It wouldn't do them any good if they did.

You can't claim Jesus, you believe in him or you don't.

Here you go again Smileless. YOU think he was very, very special. I may think he was pretty interesting but two thirds of the world will think of the New Testament and all that goes with it as a story. You have to admit Christians don't try to show him as a bad guy so I think (and I am allowed to do that) that the "story" painted him as very, very special.

If the right-wing haven't tried to claim him why did Thatcher mis-tell bible stories in order to make them more appealing to the right-wing and why did Nadhim Zahowi post that poster?

PippaZ
Firstly I can’t see the Conservative party being around in other 2000 years.
Secondly, the reason why Christians are still believing in him after 2000 is not due to Chinese whispers, believing in fairy stories or having no idea of the history of the time.
It is precisely because of the history of the time that I personally believe in the efficacy of the witnesses. Eye witness accounts and those and of second generation Christians who knew personally those who walked with Jesus, and so forth.
My own faith is evidence based and I have studied both Christian history and Roman history.
Both Roman history and Christian history and Jewish history (Josephus etc) in my mind corroborates the narrative.

So have you decided that it is correct to call it a comparison - even if it was a negative one Smileless?

I do feel this is getting to the age-old Christian debates about how many angels can balance on the head of a pin. It has probably run it course unless something interesting comes up.

Yes of course I do Pippa I'm a Christian!! What two thirds of the world may or may not think of the New Testament in of no interest to me.

Why would Christians want to try to "show him as a bad guy"; he wasn't. Of course you're allowed to think that what you regard as merely a story painted him as "very, very special".

As for Thatcher and Nadhim Zahowi you'd have to ask them. I don't claim to be able to see into the hearts and minds of others, or to know what two thirds of the world may think.

Only God can do that.

No I've already said IMO it wasn't a comparison.

Perhaps you could try and find something interesting to say then Pippa. For me any conversation about Jesus and Christianity is generally of interest, depending on who I'm having the conversation with of course.

I've never considered that discussing how many angels can balance on the head of a pin is a serious Christian debate, but each to their own.

Agedp1953

PippaZ
Firstly I can’t see the Conservative party being around in other 2000 years.
Secondly, the reason why Christians are still believing in him after 2000 is not due to Chinese whispers, believing in fairy stories or having no idea of the history of the time.
It is precisely because of the history of the time that I personally believe in the efficacy of the witnesses. Eye witness accounts and those and of second generation Christians who knew personally those who walked with Jesus, and so forth.
My own faith is evidence based and I have studied both Christian history and Roman history.
Both Roman history and Christian history and Jewish history (Josephus etc) in my mind corroborates the narrative.

We can live in hope about the demise of the Conservative party Agedp1953, certainly as it is at the moment.

I said nothing about Chinese whispers or believing in fairy stories, did I? You are certainly at liberty to believe whatever you want to but then so am I. There are no eyewitness accounts outside the bible and many believe these accounts are reports of the beliefs of the time they were written in - several generations after the supposed events. We know how poor eye witness accounts often are, especially when passed from generation to generation. The first Gospel to record anything is thought to have been 70 years after his death. That is memories passed from generation to generation over that time. There are no contemporaneous accounts.

Josephus is thought to have written his reportage in 93AD, and there are questions about whether the passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe.

None of this stops your belief from being true for you but nor does it stop me from describing some future event as "painted".

Smileless2012

Yes of course I do Pippa I'm a Christian!! What two thirds of the world may or may not think of the New Testament in of no interest to me.

Why would Christians want to try to "show him as a bad guy"; he wasn't. Of course you're allowed to think that what you regard as merely a story painted him as "very, very special".

As for Thatcher and Nadhim Zahowi you'd have to ask them. I don't claim to be able to see into the hearts and minds of others, or to know what two thirds of the world may think.

Only God can do that.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Why should I not use the word "painted". You seemed to object to it.

No I've already said IMO it wasn't a comparison. Smileless2012 Mon 05-Apr-21 17:51:21

Comparison: a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.

I think, once another participant goes into conversion mode, all is lost Smileless.

It's you who seems to have missed the point Pippa there is nothing in the post of mine you have quoted that says you may not use the word "painted".

You're clearly missing the point by accusing me of going "into conversion mode" an all too familiar response from someone who has nothing to add to the discussion.

I agree though that when it comes to our discussion "all is lost".

Smileless2012

It's an acceptable definition to me growstuff or I wouldn't have used it.

The link though refers to politics and religion in the US and this thread was about UK politics and religion.

That's like saying that any definition of anything would be good enough.

It's a definition used very precisely in economics.

Smileless2012

No I've already said IMO it wasn't a comparison.

Perhaps you could try and find something interesting to say then Pippa. For me any conversation about Jesus and Christianity is generally of interest, depending on who I'm having the conversation with of course.

I've never considered that discussing how many angels can balance on the head of a pin is a serious Christian debate, but each to their own.

Pippa's contribution to the discussion has been very interesting.

Smileless2012

It's you who seems to have missed the point Pippa there is nothing in the post of mine you have quoted that says you may not use the word "painted".

You're clearly missing the point by accusing me of going "into conversion mode" an all too familiar response from someone who has nothing to add to the discussion.

I agree though that when it comes to our discussion "all is lost".

Actually you did go into conversion mode. Your whole debate has been from the perspective of someone who believes in God. Your arguments don't hold for anybody who doesn't hold your views.

You stated that God can look into people's minds. He can't look into the minds of people who don't believe he exists.

Definitions are often subjective growstuff. The definition you're referring too may well be "used very precisely in economics" but as I was stating that I don't regard Jesus as being an economic reformer, for me it was not as relevant to the discussion as the one I used.

I'm sure Pippa will be pleased to know that.

PippaZ
That's 2000 years of building up the story, painting him as something very, very special and talking to an audience who really have no idea of the history of our time. I think, if he had become a popular figure to follow, the remaining right-wing could indeed be trying to claim him - it would, after all, be nothing new.

I think your analogy to the Christian story is fairly obvious.

Of course Josephus wrote in the first century, he was initially involved as a leader during the siege of Jerusalem and subsequently joined with Titus and returned to Rome.
His history of the Jews and testimonium flavinium regarding Jesus are contested by some scholars as being partially true, nevertheless they are generally accepted by scholars as being generally true apart from the resurrection narrative. It is also true that any references anywhere are always discredited by the opposition. Origen c230ad spoke of their efficacy.
Josephus also spoke about other biblical figures including James and John the Baptist. He added light to the description in the book of Acts regarding the death of Herod Agrippa.

St.Paul’s epistles are probably the earliest scriptural documents and yes the gospel dates followed later. John being written by the apostle from his base in Ephesus (Turkey).
Much of our knowledge of historical figures comes from much later writings. There aren’t any original manuscripts of Julius Caesar but we accept later manuscripts regarding his campaigns in the Gallic wars.
You also underestimate the value of the spoken narrative in ancient times. Many writings including those regarding Buddha where not written down till much , much later.

No I didn't go into conversion mode growstuff. Of course my debate is "from the perspective of someone who believes in God", I'm a Christian.

"He (God) can't look into the minds of people who don't believe he exists" I believe he can growstuff whether they believe in him or not.

" Your arguments don't hold for anybody who doesn't hold your views" these are not my views, they are my faith.

I have enjoyed your balanced and informative comments on this thread Smileless ....Easter this year has been strange, but
Oddly comforting too, as we had an outdoor service which was very special in the way that the congregation bonded, and the al fresco aspect didn’t detract from the occasion as we all expected.?

Thank you lemongrove. I agree that Easter this year has been strange but as you say "oddly comforting". I'm glad you found it comforting too.