|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 5, 2024 19:13:14 GMT
Not the same. There was, and is, a ton of Christian Zionism in this country. There isn't a ton of Christian Islamism. There is on the other hand a ton of sympathy for Palestinians from people who not Muslim, including many Christians. And some Jews. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,368 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Mar 5, 2024 19:22:09 GMT
quite a lot actually. It is perfectly possible to be broadly sympathetic to Israel both historically & in terms of its right to defend its borders and still be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 5, 2024 19:29:40 GMT
quite a lot actually. It is perfectly possible to be broadly sympathetic to Israel both historically & in terms of its right to defend its borders and still be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. Nearly at 8000 posts! |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 5, 2024 21:34:09 GMT
Dat Tru, but not complete. The New Testament and Koran were written by late Iron Age goatherders. I used to herd a goat. I do like goats. Historians generally don't classify the Roman period as part of the Iron Age. And none of the authors of the New Testament or the Quran seem to have ever worked as a goatherd, a sheepherd, or any other kind of herder. But apart from those points there's nothing incorrect about your post. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Mar 5, 2024 22:15:08 GMT
The Lord is your shepherd.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Mar 6, 2024 8:33:21 GMT
Terry Pratchett is very clear on the distinction between shepherds and goat herders in forming religions.
‘Sheep have to be driven, goats need to be led’
|
|
|
|
Post by carswellfan on Mar 6, 2024 18:56:39 GMT
Rochdale By -Election: A three way seat, methinks. One of the most interesting by-election in years due to the absolutely chaos of it all! - Labour candidate is still officially the candidate despite party abandoning him after news of his remarks on Jewish figures and Palestine. Could win still as Rochdale heavily Labour. - George Galloway again successfully courts the local Muslim vote to get him in as many hold strong views on the Isreal-Palestine and feel that Labour do not represent them. I'm not a fan of him at all. He last won a by election in spectacular fashion in 2012 under the same set of circumstances but was trounced at the 2015 GE - Reform UK Simon Danzuk (Former Labour MP) just clinches it. But only just. Has focused on immigration etc but hasn't won the vital support from the large Muslim community, so this won't help him much. Tiny majority for whoever the winner is. Nomination for "2024 post that didn't age well" in the VUKFPOTY awards? Well......... .... "At least I tried!" |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Mar 6, 2024 19:47:55 GMT
Nomination for "2024 post that didn't age well" in the VUKFPOTY awards? Well......... .... "At least I tried!" Some of the best posts on here are the totally wrong ones! |
|
|
|
Post by jefferson on Mar 7, 2024 11:14:55 GMT
Dat Tru, but not complete. The New Testament and Koran were written by late Iron Age goatherders. I used to herd a goat. I do like goats. Historians generally don't classify the Roman period as part of the Iron Age. And none of the authors of the New Testament or the Quran seem to have ever worked as a goatherd, a sheepherd, or any other kind of herder. But apart from those points there's nothing incorrect about your post. I know there's debate over the authors of the various bits of the bible (and the psalms) - but I thought David was an actual shepherd and is at least credited within the text? (said with a GCSE level of knowledge about biblical historiography) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 7, 2024 11:38:40 GMT
If King David wrote any of the New Testament, that raises a whole new set of questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Mar 7, 2024 11:54:21 GMT
Dat Tru, but not complete. The New Testament and Koran were written by late Iron Age goatherders. I used to herd a goat. I do like goats. Historians generally don't classify the Roman period as part of the Iron Age. And none of the authors of the New Testament or the Quran seem to have ever worked as a goatherd, a sheepherd, or any other kind of herder. But apart from those points there's nothing incorrect about your post. Well it was still the iron age in Scotland (generally considered to be 400 AD) when the new testament was written! |
|
|
|
Post by jefferson on Mar 7, 2024 11:58:45 GMT
If King David wrote any of the New Testament, that raises a whole new set of questions. Agreed, but the New Testament does contain a fair few quotations from the Psalms (not sure if that includes any of the ones credited to David) - and google also throws up Luke 24:44 grandfathering them in. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 7, 2024 12:22:08 GMT
If King David wrote any of the New Testament, that raises a whole new set of questions. Agreed, but the New Testament does contain a fair few quotations from the Psalms (not sure if that includes any of the ones credited to David) - and google also throws up Luke 24:44 grandfathering them in. If I were to write a book where I used the phrase "to be or not to be, that is the question", that wouldn't make William Shakespeare my co-author. The same thing applies to New Testament authors quoting Davidic psalms. And when they are reporting instances of Jesus quoting a Davidic psalm*, it's even more obvious that David can't be considered a co-author. *without looking anything up, the only instance I can think of where a new testament writer quotes a psalm that is attributed to David is when Jesus quotes the opening of Psalm 22 whilst on the cross. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,714
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Mar 7, 2024 12:44:35 GMT
Historians generally don't classify the Roman period as part of the Iron Age. And none of the authors of the New Testament or the Quran seem to have ever worked as a goatherd, a sheepherd, or any other kind of herder. But apart from those points there's nothing incorrect about your post. Well it was still the iron age in Scotland (generally considered to be 400 AD) when the new testament was written! Nope, that is when the writings were brought together and the formal Bible agreed at the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). The Gospels and Letters had been around for a couple of centuries by then. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Mar 7, 2024 12:53:43 GMT
Well it was still the iron age in Scotland (generally considered to be 400 AD) when the new testament was written! Nope, that is when the writings were brought together and the formal Bible agreed at the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). The Gospels and Letters had been around for a couple of centuries by then. Apologies - I meant to say that it was 400 AD when the iron age ended in Scotland, not when the bible was written. |
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,188
|
Post by Sandy on Mar 7, 2024 12:55:52 GMT
Historians generally don't classify the Roman period as part of the Iron Age. And none of the authors of the New Testament or the Quran seem to have ever worked as a goatherd, a sheepherd, or any other kind of herder. But apart from those points there's nothing incorrect about your post. Well it was still the iron age in Scotland (generally considered to be 400 AD) when the new testament was written! By 400AD St Jerome was already working on or had completed the Vulgate…… Edit - just seen your above quote. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Mar 7, 2024 12:57:10 GMT
Well it was still the iron age in Scotland (generally considered to be 400 AD) when the new testament was written! By 400AD St Jerome was already working on or had completed the Vulgate…… Edit - just seen your above quote. There are physical bibles which predate 400 AD! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 7, 2024 14:18:00 GMT
Nope, that is when the writings were brought together and the formal Bible agreed at the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD). The Gospels and Letters had been around for a couple of centuries by then. Apologies - I meant to say that it was 400 AD when the iron age ended in Scotland, not when the bible was written. Archaeologically the Iron Age in Scandinavia isn't considered to have finished unti around AD 800. Though in practice all these dates are distinctly arbitrary - obviously iron didn't stop being used at the end of each of the regionally-specific Iron Ages. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Mar 7, 2024 16:36:19 GMT
Apologies - I meant to say that it was 400 AD when the iron age ended in Scotland, not when the bible was written. Archaeologically the Iron Age in Scandinavia isn't considered to have finished unti around AD 800. Though in practice all these dates are distinctly arbitrary - obviously iron didn't stop being used at the end of each of the regionally-specific Iron Ages. For that matter, stone didn't stop being used at the end of any regionally-specific Stone Ages, and continued being used for many of its typical Stone Age purposes well into the Iron Age (and, of course, is still used for many purposes). For that matter, in areas which had a Bronze Age (not all did - rather as Britain went straight from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age, some areas jumped straight from copper or even stone to iron), bronze also continued in use well into the Iron Age. And in practice, the date generally accepted as the end of the Iron Age in any region has nothing to do with iron but with when pre-history is regarded as having ended and history started - in other words, when events in the region start being covered in historical records, though those historical records may be distinctly scanty and scarcely mention large parts of the region. On that basis, while the English Iron Age is generally regarded as having ended with the Roman invasions, it could, so far as I can make out, quite cogently be argued that the Iron Age only ended in the immediate Rochdale area in the 11th century, with the coverage of Rochdale in the Domesday Book. One might in fact ask - if all our historical records had disappeared, just when would we regard the English Iron Age as having ended? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 7, 2024 16:47:44 GMT
And indeed whilst the manufacture of iron is technically more complex than the manufacture of bronze, it is logistically simpler, because all you need is iron, heat and a forge, whereas to make bronze you need copper and tin. Both of those are less common geologically than iron (the latter substantially so) and the two are rarely located in the same regions, so you need broader trade networks to produce large quantities of bronze.
|
|
