The Conservatives have claimed Good Friday

Lucca

PippaZ

Lucca

Eazybee if you’re a christian fine to wish people good Friday but no need for the conservative logo added, surely ?

Would any Christian wish other people "Good Friday". Oh, come on guys, this is the day they believe that Christ died and at this point, no one could be sure he would rise from the dead. I seriously don't think so.

Why would Nadhim Zahawi even do that? It's despicable. Today is the day Christians celebrate the resurrection to the eternal life of the man who, to quote Richard Murphy (a Quaker), "campaigned for economic justice for the poor, the forgiveness of their oppressive debts, and for monetary reform."

Again, to quote Murphy "Jesus was an economic reform campaigner. He died four days after he overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple."

How dare, simply how dare, Conservatives try to claim either Jesus or Christianity! I see he has done the same for Easter Sunday. At the very least this shows an appalling knowledge of our history, based for centuries on Christianity. A best it is insulting to those whose day of celebration this is.

I apologised immediately for typing too fast When what I meant was it’s ok to mark/recognise/acknowledge good Friday but not to associate it with party logo.

Whereas political party wishing happy Easter etc is ok. There is a difference .

Indeed Lucca. It's probably my apology that is needed then as I didn't start reading the thread until I came on this afternoon so I was replying to early posts when you had, almost certainly, explained by then.

MaizieD Completely agree with your post 17.30.08. I remember the time when we couldn't go out to play on Good Friday but had to stay in doors and do quiet things like reading and jigsaws.

I've always thought the man's an idiot and his tweet has reinforced my opinion of him.

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.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202104/medium-735365-eyhrheqxmamkrtf.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202104/medium-343843-ex6topfwqaiukn3.jpg

WWM2 said what she thought about the various parties' Easter tweets but I think there's something else that is jumping right out at me about the images.

None of them are overtly Christian.

We've got pictures of eggs and lambs and blossom, all symbolic of the Spring festival associated with Eostre and not really part of a Christian Easter. More pictures attached.

In fact the only Christian one is the one from Tory Minister Zadawi on Good Friday.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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 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.

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?

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".

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.

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

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.

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

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

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

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 .

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.

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

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.

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

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