The Conservatives have claimed Good Friday

I do not expect others to accept my view Pippa I am providing information to support what I have said.

Rentier capitalism in current political/science and international-relations theory, is a state which derives all, or a substantial portion of its national revenues from the rent paid by foreign individuals, concerns or governments. How does this apply to the first century society in Palestine which was governed by an occupying power the Romans, who allowed the religious authorities to have their own currency for the temple tax, which was to avoid the idolatrous symbols on Roman coinage from entering the temple.

In Jesus' ministry social justice went beyond economics. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" for example. You refer to Jeremiah; Jeremiah in chap. 7 v 11 said "has this house which bares my name become a den of robbers in your site". when Jesus overturned the tables it was for the same reason which Jeremiah had spoken about 600 years earlier.

Pilate did put Jesus to death, he had the authority to say 'yay or nay', you do not scourge an innocent man. He washed his hands as a symbolic gesture to absolve himself from his crime.

The Jewish leaders had more to lose than their wealth. They controlled they whole Jewish social system. They had the power to exclude people from the synagogue, the social and religious hub of peoples lives.

They were faced with losing their position in society, the 'respect' of their people and their religious authority so in short, their power.

It wasn't that Jesus could answer questions to protect himself and his followers, he didn't. He answered with the truth and often in a provocative manner rather than defensively. He said to the Pharisees for example "woe to you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like white washed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of impurity". Not the words of a man seeking to protect himself of his followers.

With regard to the forgiveness of debt, the parable to which you refer is more about forgiveness and uses money as an example. A king forgave one of his subjects a massive debt and when that man went out, he wouldn't do the same for one of his own whose debt was much smaller. This parable was to illustrate forgiveness and mercy. Having been forgiven by his king, he was unable or unwilling to offer the same forgiveness and mercy for a considerably smaller debt.

I agree that Jesus was "against the leaders of his own society" but it was way beyond the accumulation of wealth at the expense of others. They were religious leaders, God's representatives on earth. They had no respect for the God they supposedly worshipped or for His people, or the teachings of the Old Testament.

In short, they were not following the first and most important commandment; "love the Lord your God with all your heart ....." which was the foundation on which their faith was supposed to be built upon.

Smileless2012 Mon 05-Apr-21 09:53:01. You are right and I should have checked back, I will elucidate.

You do not seem to allow any historical background into what you believe - which is fine until you expect others to accept your view too.

You say Jesus was not an economic reformer and when he turned over the tables in the temple, which Murphy appears to have used to demonstrate that he was, that had nothing to with economics. How do you know? Historically there was a movement against monetising the temple. There had been a long tradition of identifying the religion of Jehova with the ideal of protecting the poor from the increasingly landed aristocracy. You can go back to Elijah, Amos and Hosea who identify it in this way. Isaiah preached on social justice; Josiah uses Deuteronomy on which to base his reforms, and Jeremiah denounces usury. I won't go on but, by the time of Jesus things had changed and the view of economics has moved from one which saw the need for all to have a reasonable share and not be burdened by debt into something closer to our "greed is good" rentier capitalism society.

I would ask you why the hierarchy of the Jewish temple put Jesus to death? It wasn't Pilate - he washed his hands of the in-fighting and left it to the Jews. What had they got to lose if not their accumulated wealth? And they knew Jesus knew the law. He had shown he did when teaching. He had also shown he could answer questions in a way that protected himself and his followers. Jesus was not the only one preaching against the lack of adherence to the law and creditor aggressiveness. There were many around at the time but Jesus worried them because he was winning over the population (Palm Sunday).
.
I previously quoted his first sermon and I will point out another. The Unmerciful Servant, Matthew 18:21-35. This is all about the forgiveness of debt. If Jesus managed to bring back the "Jubilee Year" which was part of Judaic law when debts were forgiven, where would it leave those running the religion that they had monetised to make themselves rich - no wonder they wanted to be rid of him.

When Jesus overturned the tables and drove out those using it as a marketplace, where the swearing of debts took place, he was not going to enamour himself to those who had made themselves rich from ignoring the law. He quoted Jeremiah at this point - a prophet who warned against turning the temple into "a den of thieves" by oppressing aliens, orphans and widows and saying the poverty goes hand in hand with its cause; covetous greed.

There is much, much more but the idea that Jesus was not against the leaders of his own society and the wealth they had accumulated at the cost of others poverty seems so far from the truth to me. However, I have no doubt some will continue to believe it which, of course, is their right - as long as you allow others to form their own opinion.

Anniebach

Pippa we don’t have mining valleys , it’s relevant to me

No comment on the need for humility when it comes to individual views I see.

We had North Wales Baptist missionaries in the family and they spent their lives trying to bring others to 'the true faith' both here and overseas, so they were definitely not unaware of other strands of Christianity and other faiths.

Actually on the whole it seems a perfectly reasonable discussion to me.

lemsip religion and politics, just light the blue touch paper and stand back ?

Pippa we don’t have mining valleys , it’s relevant to me

Anniebach

Pippa I doubt a minister in the South Wales mining valleys
through the 20’s and 30’s had much time to ponder on the Greek Orthodox Church .

I doubt it too Anniebach although, as we don't have any 1920s and 30s South Wales mining valleys ministers posting on here, I'm not sure why it's relevant If we did I hope that he would have the humility not to assume his was the "only way" of considering either the Bible or the life of Jesus.

Rosie51's post of Mon 05-Apr-21 00:42:53 and Boogaloo's post of Mon 05-Apr-21 02:22:46 provide an interesting contrast. Rosie comes over as someone who has explored her faith, understood where it fits in the many Christian views that exist and is happy with where she has got to with it while accepting others will not always see things in the same way. Contrastingly Boogaloo makes a statement of opinion as if it were a truth and one she expects others to accept.

astonished that this has run on to 9 pages and counting, so much animosity going on!

You're the one who quoted Murphy with regard to the over turning of the tables Pippa yesterday @ 15.07, so I'm surprised that you've asked.

You posted "To quote Murphy again Jesus was an economic reformer campaigner. He died 4 days after he over turned the tables of the money changers in the Temple".

Jesus said and did many things that made him an enemy of the religious authorities and the incident in the Temple was just one.

In John 8 v 56 -59 it says "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at him" again in John 10 v 30 - 33 we read "The Jews took up stones again to stone him". In John 11 v 50 Caiaphas said "You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than the whole nation perish".

He was fearful that the Roman authorities would take matters into their own hands if there was any trouble associated with Jesus' ministry.

Jesus was regarded as a trouble maker, he was very critical of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Scribes.

In Mark 3 1-6 we read how Jesus went into a synagogue where there was a man with a withered hand, and the authorities watched to see if Jesus would heal him on the sabbath. When he did, they immediately held council with the Herodians against him to see how they could destroy him.

To site the incident in the temple and say that Jesus was crucified 4 days later implies that it was that incident alone that secured his fate. That is not correct and is insufficient to say the least, to claim that Jesus was a economic reformer campaigner.

Pippa I doubt a minister in the South Wales mining valleys
through the 20’s and 30’s had much time to ponder on the Greek Orthodox Church .

It was a tasteful acknowledgment of Good Friday, obviously sponsored by the Conservative party.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

As a practising Christian I totally accept that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) are open to interpretation and look forward to the many interpretations some very knowledgeable and well read posters will post with regards to the teachings of the Quran and Torah. As a Christian I tend to take my teachings from the New Testament, (Leviticus doesn't figure large on my horizon) and moreover as a Methodist I acknowledge I adhere more to peasant religion than the Higher Churches

Where has Murphy used the tables in the temple Smileless? It seems much more likely, as Murphy has said his views reference Hudson's And Forgive Them Their Debt that he has taken on board the 're-reinstatement of Jubilee Years. Hudson says:

Opposing this pro-creditor argument, Jesus announced in his inaugural sermon that he had come to proclaim the Jubilee Year of the Lord cited by Isaiah, whose scroll he unrolled.

Christianity then went on to turn this historical "forgiveness of debt" into the forgiveness of sins.

Do tell me about your study of the history of this time in this very different culture. Christianity is not 'owned' by the English and nor is the truth of it 'owned' by any one person or group of people. You say Murphy has "manufactured a link" when no such link has been quoted. I put forward the possibility of a perfectly reasonable discrediting of your insistence that you and a few others on here are the only ones who know the truth.

It's not very inclusive is it. I didn't see the government mention Passover.

Jesus was not an economic reformer and when he turned over the tables in the temple, which Murphy appears to have used to demonstrate that he was, that had nothing to with economics.

My post @ 15.38 explains why. Interpretation is one thing but manufacturing a link as Murphy has done is quite another.

Anniebach

Pippa I said I respect the opinions of others etc. There will always be discussions .

For me I have learned much from the journals of my g grandfather, a Baptist minister, active in politics, he worked with Keir Hardie when he stood for labour in Merthyr , he worked as a coal miner to raise money to build the chapel, I read of the soup kitchens during the depression, his support of parents who ,at time, would not put their son in an asylum ,he was downs, throughout his journals he never questioned the
words of the New Testament, he followed them, as I try to do.

Sorry off topic.

I do find the idea that "he never questioned the words of the New Testament, he followed them" odd, as his reading of them will still be an opinion or interpretation of what they originally meant.

You say he was a Baptist. Was his interpretation of the "words" the same as a Methodist, a Catholic, a member of the C of E, a Quaker, a member of the Greek Orthodox (who won't be celebrating Easter until May 2 this year) Russian Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Non-trinitarian Restorationism etc., etc., I am sure there are people in all those churches who would say the "followed the words of Jesus in the New Testament". Does that mean they all interpret them in the same way?

What I object to is the very idea that someone who 'follows the words of Jesus as told in the New Testament' has the only right interpretation of those words. The New Testament was, of course, written in Ancient Greek - not English, This begs the question of exactly how true to their origin are the "words" you are attempting to interpret and follow.

It is easy to accept they are right for you but perhaps seeing the "words" from the perspective of others would help you realise those who say this do not have the only view nor, necessarily, always the right one. There are other, perfectly viable, other point of view of those "words".

Alegrias1

I just did a trawl of the main parties' twitters (Its a slow day in the Alegrias household....)

Images attached. Tory one is in my previous post.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Pagans?

I wonder at Christians who say they don't find this offensive. Did they not look carefully enough?

Perhaps, trisher, it is because Christians find it in their hearts to forgive and that is one of the fundamental messages of Good Friday?

I'm sure they will forgive the Minister concerned - for perhaps he knows not what he does? They may also find it in their hearts to understand and forgive the anger of those who have expressed so much anger on their behalf.

Pippa I said I respect the opinions of others etc. There will always be discussions .

For me I have learned much from the journals of my g grandfather, a Baptist minister, active in politics, he worked with Keir Hardie when he stood for labour in Merthyr , he worked as a coal miner to raise money to build the chapel, I read of the soup kitchens during the depression, his support of parents who ,at time, would not put their son in an asylum ,he was downs, throughout his journals he never questioned the
words of the New Testament, he followed them, as I try to do.

Sorry off topic.

Anniebach

Murphy has an opinion, he doesn’t know .

Smiless like you I follow the New Testament, I respect the opinions of others who choose to say ‘what Jesus really meant etc’ but I turn to my bible and follow his words.

Annie, I didn't say he did know; it was another opinion to consider. Both you and Smileless "follow the New Testament" It is what he bases his opinion on too. Many meanings are attributed to what may or may not be the words of Jesus - including the opinion that none of them were reported until 70 years after his death, I have no doubt the world will continue to discuss this.

However, I don't think that means someone has the right to say "I know better than you what this means". Smileless doesn't; I don't, Murphy doesn't. However, some of us consider the evidence and read the words of those who have studied this for years to see if it adds to our knowledge. I don't think, for instance, that the current Archbishop of Canterbury would agree with what one poster declared as the only truth on here. But we were told, with great hubris, that this was the only "right".

Murphy has an opinion, he doesn’t know .

Smiless like you I follow the New Testament, I respect the opinions of others who choose to say ‘what Jesus really meant etc’ but I turn to my bible and follow his words.

Interesting Alegrias1. He got it wrong; let's hope he appologises.

Smileless2012

I have a little theory too Pippa do not ascribe to Jesus anything that he didn't say of didn't stand for. Murphy was quoted on this thread as saying that Jesus was an "economic reformer"; he wasn't.

As for wider reading, for my Christian faith I have no further to look than the Bible but I can assure you I am well read.

Smileless would you like to give me your qualifications re what Jesus did and didn't say or what he stood for. I have discussed the bible with many members of the clergy and I have never been told, by those who have far more education in this area than I do (and, I would guess than you do), that there is only one way to view Jesus and I must not "ascribe" to him anything "he didn't say or stand for". They simply would not be that arrogant.

How do you know Jesus wasn't an economic reformer? Were you there? Every part of Christianity and the history around it gives rise to opinions and interpretations, including those about the New Testament and the rest of the Bible. Yours is just another of them.

It has always been debatable, including within the church, how much of the New Testament is an actual telling of what happened or a tale to give an idea of what the religion, built around a man's life, had become. The New Testament is not even a complete collection of gospels - just those chosen at the Council of Nicaea. I am not self-opinionated enough to believe I know. All I was suggesting was that you widen your view rather than dictate to others. That, it appears, is not going to happen.

Chestnut

PippaZ Just to be clear, Lemongrove's post I was referring to was 15:32:53. Maybe you should be careful before throwing unfounded accusations at other posters. I would never suggest anyone was lying! But it would seem 'faux outrage' means something different to you than to me.
As I said, I don't think politicians should be posting anything religious at all.

What was the unfounded accusation you are suggesting I threw about? Just so we keep the clarity.

You may have thought up a personal meaning for faux but the dictionary meaning is not genuine; fake or false. I'm not sure where I am supposed to find yours or what flags it up as not being the usual dictionary meaning so I can only go by the generally agree meaning.