The bible says you must be born of the Spirit, but what exactly doesI think the main point of the expression is that you cannot remake
that mean?-a For me it meant becoming a Christian and having your life transformed, believing in Paul's description of no longer being
conformed to the World's standard, but something new struck me a few
weeks ago, and maybe I was wrong.
The bible says you must be born of the Spirit, but what exactly does
that mean?-a For me it meant becoming a Christian and having your life transformed, believing in Paul's description of no longer being
conformed to the World's standard, but something new struck me a few
weeks ago, and maybe I was wrong.
On 23/02/2026 21:58, John wrote:
The bible says you must be born of the Spirit, but what exactly does
that mean?-a For me it meant becoming a Christian and having your life
transformed, believing in Paul's description of no longer being
conformed to the World's standard, but something new struck me a few
weeks ago, and maybe I was wrong.
My understanding is it is a shift from being self-centred to being God- centred. "Consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ
Jesus." [Romans 6:11] Also, "rCLIt is no longer I who live, but Christ
lives in me.rCY [Gal.2:20]
To me, the whole New Testament message centres around Christ's commands
to love God, and to love your neighbour. Both of these are about looking away from self and out to God and to others.
This is about selflessness, but I would be careful to point out that it
does not mean not looking after ourselves. Indeed, we are told to love others 'As we love ourselves'. We should remember that we also are made
in God's Image, and not just those around us.
So it's looking after ourselves, but avoiding being selfish at the
expense of others, or centring on self.
Two things: Putting God rather than self at the centre of our being.
Also, the central point is always Love God and Neighbour.
On 23/02/2026 21:58, John wrote:
The bible says you must be born of the Spirit, but what exactly doesI think the main point of the expression is that you cannot remake
that mean?-a For me it meant becoming a Christian and having your life
transformed, believing in Paul's description of no longer being
conformed to the World's standard, but something new struck me a few
weeks ago, and maybe I was wrong.
yourself, you have to ask God to do it for you. This takes the emphasis
away from anything you might consciously do - "works", to use the usual terminology.
However the second point is that what is involved is not just tinkering
with a few bad habits. You are starting on a completely new life, just
as if you were re-born into a new existence.
On 24/02/2026 07:54, Timreason wrote:
On 23/02/2026 21:58, John wrote:
The bible says you must be born of the Spirit, but what exactly does
that mean?-a For me it meant becoming a Christian and having your life
transformed, believing in Paul's description of no longer being
conformed to the World's standard, but something new struck me a few
weeks ago, and maybe I was wrong.
My understanding is it is a shift from being self-centred to being
God- centred. "Consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in
Christ Jesus." [Romans 6:11] Also, "rCLIt is no longer I who live, but
Christ lives in me.rCY [Gal.2:20]
To me, the whole New Testament message centres around Christ's
commands to love God, and to love your neighbour. Both of these are
about looking away from self and out to God and to others.
This is about selflessness, but I would be careful to point out that
it does not mean not looking after ourselves. Indeed, we are told to
love others 'As we love ourselves'. We should remember that we also
are made in God's Image, and not just those around us.
So it's looking after ourselves, but avoiding being selfish at the
expense of others, or centring on self.
Two things: Putting God rather than self at the centre of our being.
Also, the central point is always Love God and Neighbour.
Yes I would agree, with the caveat that it is the Holy Spirit who brings about that change, although obviously the Christian has to continue
walking in the light.
Is it t is this a Christian idea, or was it required of the Jews as
well, did they need to be born again?
The reason I ask is because I'm not aware of this happening in the OT.
Jews took their burn't offerings to the alter once a year to repent, and whilst I'm sure that an habitual sinner would be desecrating that
offering, it was all that was required for the average Jew.
Yep, I agree with that, however the reason I'm asking is this seems to
be a Christian belief, rather than something which has come from the OT.
The reason I ask is because I'm not aware of this happening in the OT.I agree that that might seem a somewhat mechanical approach to God:
Jews took their burn't offerings to the alter once a year to repent, and whilst I'm sure that an habitual sinner would be desecrating that
offering, it was all that was required for the average Jew.
I'm no expert. But I think the nature of the Covenant was different for them, a Covenant specifically for the Jews. Our New Covenant is offered
to all peoples, and not just the Jews. I won't say any more, on account
of my lack of knowledge in this area. It's best if I avoid talking from
an orifice not usually associated with communication...
I agree that that might seem a somewhat mechanical approach to God:
offer a goat, get your sins forgiven. Solomon's prayer at the
dedication of his temple, seems to me to point towards a deeper aspect
to the worship of God than just sin-sacrifice-repeat
I'm not sure, I think he was more instrumental in establishing the
instituion of ritual sacrifice. Parts of his prayer (e.g. the direction
to face Jerusalem) seem to me to foreshadow the idolatry into which he
would slip in falling away from God. Solomon built the temple with much iniquity, the blood of forced labour, etc. all of which point to the
building of the jerusalem temple as a financial institution, which
sustained itself rather than a place of worship of God
On 25/02/2026 12:43, John wrote:
On 24/02/2026 07:54, Timreason wrote:
Two things: Putting God rather than self at the centre of our being.
Also, the central point is always Love God and Neighbour.
Yes I would agree, with the caveat that it is the Holy Spirit who
brings about that change, although obviously the Christian has to
continue walking in the light.
Indeed. We are told that our bodies are 'Temples of the Holy Spirit'.
[1 Corinthians 6:19rCo20] That is another way of saying that God, rather than self, is at the centre of our being.
Is it t is this a Christian idea, or was it required of the Jews as
well, did they need to be born again?
I'm no expert. But I think the nature of the Covenant was different for them, a Covenant specifically for the Jews. Our New Covenant is offered
to all peoples, and not just the Jews. I won't say any more, on account
of my lack of knowledge in this area. It's best if I avoid talking from
an orifice not usually associated with communication...
On 25/02/2026 12:43, John wrote:
The reason I ask is because I'm not aware of this happening in the OT.I agree that that might seem a somewhat mechanical approach to God:
Jews took their burn't offerings to the alter once a year to repent,
and whilst I'm sure that an habitual sinner would be desecrating that
offering, it was all that was required for the average Jew.
offer a goat, get your sins forgiven. Solomon's prayer at the dedication
of his temple, seems to me to point towards a deeper aspect to the
worship of God than just sin-sacrifice-repeat
On 25/02/2026 12:48, John wrote:
Yep, I agree with that, however the reason I'm asking is this seems to
be a Christian belief, rather than something which has come from the OT.
The whole thing seems to come from Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus,
which of course was a New Testament event.
In Old Testament times you had to join the nation of Israel in order to worship Israel's God, so that would deal with the changed lives bit of
the concept. In addition, it is in the old Testament that we find the promise "I will take away their stony heart and give them a heart of
flesh" and also "I will write My laws on their hearts". Both seem to me
to be akin to the Christian "New Birth" requirement.
Jesus didn't come for the Christians, He came for the Jews (I'm aware He also said about the other fold, but that wasn't His primary reason. It recently dawned on me that it was an odd thing to say to a teacher of
the Law, when it wasn't a requisite for the Jews, and the majority of Christians applying it to the new birth.
Most Christians believe this was after Pentecost.
Your input is as much valued as anyone elses Tim. I'm merely following a hypothesis, see my reply to Ken.Spiritual wisdom is not doled out with your degree from Oxford. It comes
On 26/02/2026 12:33, John wrote:
Jesus didn't come for the Christians, He came for the Jews (I'm aware
He also said about the other fold, but that wasn't His primary reason.
It recently dawned on me that it was an odd thing to say to a teacher
of the Law, when it wasn't a requisite for the Jews, and the majority
of Christians applying it to the new birth.
On the contrary, Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus needed to be
told about the new birth (John 3:10), which indicates to me that new
birth was indeed an Old Testament requirement - it was just phrased differently. See below:
Most Christians believe this was after Pentecost.
The promise to give a new heart is from Jeremiah 31. Certainly that is
what happened to those who were baptised at Pentecost, but it was on
offer well before Pentecost.
Jews might wish you to believe that they are or were saved simply
because they are descended from Abraham. St Paul, himself a Jew,
dismissed that idea in Galatians, pointing out that the true descendents
of Abraham are those who act like him and believe God as he did.
Physical descent may give you right to the earthly Canaan, it does not guarantee you a place in the heavenly Canaan.
Really?-a I understand Jeremiah was born roughly BC650, so well after the rules God laid down to Moses.
It wasn't until AD28 ish when this became a reality for those not Jewish.
When would you say that actually came about, for the Jews?
I akin them very much the same as Muslims, who follow the religion in
most cases is because they are born into it.
For sure, but you have to remember that this is Paul writing as a
believer of Christ, he wouldn't have believed that as a God fearing Jew.
Are you suggesting that the yearly sacrifices were worthless and it was
only those with faith in God who go on to eternal life.
On 28/02/2026 13:26, John wrote:
Really?-a I understand Jeremiah was born roughly BC650, so well after
the rules God laid down to Moses.
Correct.
It wasn't until AD28 ish when this became a reality for those not Jewish.
No, I believe that salvation has always been on the same basis of faith
in God and the indwelling of His Spirit.
When would you say that actually came about, for the Jews?
It has always been the case, for Jews and non-Jews.
On 28/02/2026 13:26, John wrote:
Are you suggesting that the yearly sacrifices were worthless and it
was only those with faith in God who go on to eternal life.
Only those with faith are saved. See Amos 5:21-24 for God's opinion of sacrifices and other religious observances without faith.
But no, they were not worthless. God had ordained them and offering a sacrifice accompanied by faith made it acceptable and pleasing as
obedience to God always is when motivated by love and faith. Without
those, killing an animal was no more salvific (to use a horrible term)
than butchering any animal for food.
Ken's excellent answer didn't cover this but the in the OT salvation is
never adverted to sacrifice. (sacrifices for the sake of heaven exists
as a concept in vedic sacrifice, and possibly in the emperor cults).
Despite Paul's and the 1st century christians' representation of Jewish belief, salvation for the Jews was always a matter of faith in the grace
of God and never of works.
It has always been the case, for Jews and non-Jews.
No it wasn't.-a Jews had to follow a rigid rulebook of 613 laws, subject
to varying degrees of punishment, including the death penalty for disobedient children (now theres a thought for the unruly youth of today!!)
God says there will come a day etc, which has never happened for the Jews.From statements in Ezekiel, I gather that God was indeed going to do something new. Whether the Jews liked it or not, He was going to stop
* "Kendall K. Down" <10o4ou8$1e63e$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 2 Mar 2026 19:37:45 +0000:
On 28/02/2026 13:26, John wrote:
Are you suggesting that the yearly sacrifices were worthless and it
was only those with faith in God who go on to eternal life.
Ken's excellent answer didn't cover this but the in the OT salvation is
never adverted to sacrifice. (sacrifices for the sake of heaven exists
as a concept in vedic sacrifice, and possibly in the emperor cults).
Despite Paul's and the 1st century christians' representation of Jewish belief, salvation for the Jews was always a matter of faith in the grace
of God and never of works.
On 03/03/2026 09:39, John wrote:
It has always been the case, for Jews and non-Jews.
No it wasn't.-a Jews had to follow a rigid rulebook of 613 laws,
subject to varying degrees of punishment, including the death penalty
for disobedient children (now theres a thought for the unruly youth of
today!!)
Where you are going wrong is that you fail to recognise that Israel was
a nation - and every nation requires laws (including laws governing
juvenile behaviour). But those laws have nothing to do with salvation.
Think of all the laws you have to obey here in Britain, from driving on
the left to sorting your rubbish to not running a business in your
garage. Yet obedience to those laws is quite separate from how you are
saved eternally.
Was Israel a nation during it's various occupations by foreign invaders,
eg 722BC and in particular the Roman Occupancy from 63BC?
When Jesus said not one jot or tittle be removed from the Law, did He
not know that Israel would cease to be a nation for nigh on 1800 years?
Are modern day Jews bound by the Law even if they don't live in Israel?
If I live in a different country, I am bound by that country's laws.-a If
I was a Jew I would still expect to be bound by Jewish Law no matter
where I live.
I'm quite bemused that you say that the 613 Laws were given to a NationAs always, I refer you to the 39 Articles of the Church of England,
but still expect those outside Israel to follow the 10 commandments,
even if not Jewish, as they which were simply the first 10 of the Laws.
On 03/03/2026 10:07, Madhu wrote:
* "Kendall K. Down" <10o4ou8$1e63e$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 2 Mar 2026 19:37:45 +0000:
On 28/02/2026 13:26, John wrote:Ken's excellent answer didn't cover this but the in the OT salvation
Are you suggesting that the yearly sacrifices were worthless and it
was only those with faith in God who go on to eternal life.
is never adverted to sacrifice. (sacrifices for the sake of heaven
exists as a concept in vedic sacrifice, and possibly in the emperor
cults). Despite Paul's and the 1st century christians'
representation of Jewish belief, salvation for the Jews was always a
matter of faith in the grace of God and never of works.
Could you point to where this is indicated in the OT please. I don't
think Jeremiah 30-31 cuts it for the reasons I've stated.
In my opinion, the Jews were bound by the Law, and obedience to he Law
in general, coupled with a yearly sacrifice for repentance, was
sufficient for Jewish salvation. I'm happy to be corrected on that but Jeremiah 30-31 doesn't cut it for me.
This can be aligned closely with Islamic belief. They are not saved
through grace but by obedience to the teachings of Allah as depicted
in the Qu'ran.
Could you point to where this is indicated in the OT please. I don't
think Jeremiah 30-31 cuts it for the reasons I've stated.
In my opinion, the Jews were bound by the Law, and obedience to he Law
in general, coupled with a yearly sacrifice for repentance, was
sufficient for Jewish salvation.
This can be aligned closely with Islamic belief. They are not savedI don't disput what you say about Islam but I fail to see the relevance
through grace but by obedience to the teachings of Allah as depicted in
the Qu'ran.
My point (which is still being missed in the thread) is that the
promises of the OT nowhere explicitly refer to "individual salvation
after death", and that reading that into the promises is not warranted without seeing it through a "modern" lens.
* John <10o98nm$2t4co$2@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 4 Mar 2026 12:31:49 +0000:
On 03/03/2026 10:07, Madhu wrote:
* "Kendall K. Down" <10o4ou8$1e63e$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 2 Mar 2026 19:37:45 +0000:
On 28/02/2026 13:26, John wrote:Ken's excellent answer didn't cover this but the in the OT salvation
Are you suggesting that the yearly sacrifices were worthless and it
was only those with faith in God who go on to eternal life.
is never adverted to sacrifice. (sacrifices for the sake of heaven
exists as a concept in vedic sacrifice, and possibly in the emperor
cults). Despite Paul's and the 1st century christians'
representation of Jewish belief, salvation for the Jews was always a
matter of faith in the grace of God and never of works.
Could you point to where this is indicated in the OT please. I don't
think Jeremiah 30-31 cuts it for the reasons I've stated.
My point (which is still being missed in the thread) is that the
promises of the OT nowhere explicitly refer to "individual salvation
after death", and that reading that into the promises is not warranted without seeing it through a "modern" lens. (the promises of salvation
amount to saying israel will be preserved, not because of its own righteousness, but because of the grace of god. The idea is in
Deut. 9:5-7 --- which i understand will not satisfy--- but that idea
echoed throughout kings and prophets, and in paul makes it clear that
the righteousness which Israel was constantly missing could not have
been obtained through a faith in the rules of the law alone)
On 04/03/2026 12:31, John wrote:
Could you point to where this is indicated in the OT please. I don't
think Jeremiah 30-31 cuts it for the reasons I've stated.
I am not persuaded by your reasons, but try Isaiah 43:10-12, where
belief is linked to salvation. Exactly what was mean by "saved" in those verses may be argued, but certainly belief was the condition -
sacrifices don't get a mention.
Hab 2:4 is the origin of St Paul's statement that "the just shall live
by faith"
In my opinion, the Jews were bound by the Law, and obedience to he Law
in general, coupled with a yearly sacrifice for repentance, was
sufficient for Jewish salvation.
Certainly the Jews were bound by the law - but as the 39 Articles make clear, Christians are also bound by the moral law.
You seem to think that Christians live in an anomian paradise where
anything goes and no one can say you "Nay". That is not the Christian message. Christianity teaches that you are not saved by keeping the law,
it does not teach that there is no law.
If there was no law, if Jesus had abolished all laws at the cross, on
what basis have Christian preachers down through the years proclaimed
that we are all sinners? Sin is breaking the law, but if there is no low then no one ever sins We don't need church, we don't need salvation, we don't need Christ, because there is no law and therefore there is no sin.
This can be aligned closely with Islamic belief. They are not saved
through grace but by obedience to the teachings of Allah as depicted
in the Qu'ran.
I don't disput what you say about Islam but I fail to see the relevance
of the beliefs of a false religion to a discussion of Christian beliefs
and duty.
I believe that Job's statements about "My Redeemer lives" - and Job is
often claimed to be the first book by Moses - are evidence that there
was a belief in individual salvation after death.
Later prophets were concerned with the problem of idolatry and its implications for Israel's claim to Palestine. There was no need for
them to reiterate what was (in my opinion) common knowledge or
belief. However some did indeed do so: the last few chapters in
Isaiah, Ezekiel's Vally of Dry Bones vision, even some of the passages
in Zechariah, seem to me to point to individual salvation after death.
Yes, of course. But should we transpose the kingdom-promises to Israel
(and the conditions imposed) as promises of our personal salvation, and
argue and derive necessary or sufficient conditions from those
I think I understand what you're getting at, the salvation of Israel,How many individual Jews would be called upon to impose "four sheep for
and on that I agree. What Ken and I are disagreeing about is that the individual Jew is saved by faith, not by following the Law.
We are caught red handed and we are both stoned to death. I very much
doubt I would be appearing at the pearly gates, do you?
We're not talking about Christians.
I don't think that at all. From my understanding of the bible I believe
when someone is born again in the Christian sense they surrender to
Christ and live a Holy life.-a I believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them and help them in their walk with Christ.-a It isn't about following rules and regulations per se,-a because it is the Holy Spirit who will convict them of their sin, not some words in a book.
Sin is not about breaking the Law, it's going against what you know to
be right because of the Holy Spirit.
Obviously breaking the law will be
going against what is right in God's eyes, but also includes things that
are not part of the law.
Again we're not talking about Christians here, I was pointing out the similarality between the Jews following the law and it's rituals and
Muslims following the teachings of their book.-a Understandably since Mohammad believed he was from Ishmael ancestrally.
On 05/03/2026 22:14, John wrote:
We are caught red handed and we are both stoned to death. I very much
doubt I would be appearing at the pearly gates, do you?
I am intrigued by the idea that you appear to think that a Christian
under similar circumstances would be saved? I have no doubt that an adulterous and unrepentant Christian would be lost. I have equally
little doubt that a repentant Jew would be saved - see Ezekiel 18 where
his transgressions are not remembered.
We're not talking about Christians.
We most certainly are, for you are suggesting that Jews were saved by law-keeping whereas Christians are saved by faith.
I don't think that at all. From my understanding of the bible I
believe when someone is born again in the Christian sense they
surrender to Christ and live a Holy life.-a I believe that the Holy
Spirit will guide them and help them in their walk with Christ.-a It
isn't about following rules and regulations per se,-a because it is the
Holy Spirit who will convict them of their sin, not some words in a book.
I stick with St Paul, who says that "I had not known sin, but by the
law". The "words in a book" define what sin is, the Holy Spirit convicts
us that we are sinners and need to repent.
Sin is not about breaking the Law, it's going against what you know to
be right because of the Holy Spirit.
St Paul disagrees with you.
Obviously breaking the law will be going against what is right in
God's eyes, but also includes things that are not part of the law.
I agree with you. If God calls you to be a missionary in New Guinea and
you refuse, that is just as much sin as worshipping idols. However I
think it would be a different class of sin: worshipping idols is pretty clear-cut, whereas feeling called to be a missionary might be the Holy Spirit or it might be your emotional response to a particularly
effective preacher.
Again we're not talking about Christians here, I was pointing out the
similarality between the Jews following the law and it's rituals and
Muslims following the teachings of their book.-a Understandably since
Mohammad believed he was from Ishmael ancestrally.
Yes, there are similarities and I would agree that the false relgion of Islam and the false religion of modern Judaism have a lot in common.
What I would dispute is that modern Judaism is taught in the Bible.
The Jew isn't left much time to repent but are you saying that if they repent before being stoned to death he is saved?
Equally if the Christian has a fatal heart attack and dies on the job,
so to speak, are they not saved?
Yes indeed, but the topic is about Jesus proclaiming to Nicodemus that
he needed to be born by the Spirit. Whilst that is the de facto case for Christians, I don't see that as being the de facto case for Jews.-a If it were, there would have been no need for sacrifices or sticking to
rituals etc.
So unless someone has read the bible to know what sin is they aren't saved?
Sin is sin, there are no different classes of sin. Only one sin can
block entry to the pearly gates and that's the sin against the Holy
Spirit, whatever that means. (No one seems to really know)
I'm not familiar with modern Judaism but at least they've stoppedYes, I've often wondered why they hanged Eichman instead of confronting
stoning people to death.
On 07/03/2026 15:03, John wrote:
The Jew isn't left much time to repent but are you saying that if they
repent before being stoned to death he is saved?
Death-bed repentances are accepted in Christianity. You and I may doubt
the sincerity of such occurances, but it is up to God to judge.
Equally if the Christian has a fatal heart attack and dies on the job,
so to speak, are they not saved?
Again, God is the judge. If a Christian dies after giving in to an overwhelming temptation, I would expect that his life record, rather
than that one incident, to be the deciding factor.
Yes indeed, but the topic is about Jesus proclaiming to Nicodemus that
he needed to be born by the Spirit. Whilst that is the de facto case
for Christians, I don't see that as being the de facto case for Jews.
If it were, there would have been no need for sacrifices or sticking
to rituals etc.
Why not? You see no difficulty in Christians being born of the Spirit
yet participating in Communion/Mass? Indeed many would regard such participation as a vital part of the Christian life - spiritual food, so
to speak. Why this distinction between Christian rituals and Jewish ones?
So unless someone has read the bible to know what sin is they aren't
saved?
They would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.
I agree, but I think it goes deeper.-a If someone is wantonly sinning,
with little regard for their faith, then does that person even belong to Christ?-a Someone who is in a struggle with sin and dies before they've
been able to overcome it (and that's any sin, not just sexual), then I
don't think their salvation is in danger.
Maybe just me, I have never been one for tradition, so although if in a
CofE church I would take part in communion, I was much happier having a piece of real bread and a drop of wine or fruit juice. 1 Corinthians 14
sets a good example of church for me.-a I would also say 2 or more people sat in a kitchen at home could equally break bread and it be valid, it doesn't need to be performed by a Priest dressed in robes. However, I
hasten to add that for some people that works and I'm not saying they're wrong.
The inner voice of the Spirit is all too easy to ignore orThey would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.
Exactly, and that's my point.
On 08/03/2026 13:28, John wrote:
The inner voice of the Spirit is all too easy to ignore orThey would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.Exactly, and that's my point.
misunderstand. Something in writing is clear and definite.
On 08/03/2026 13:28, John wrote:
I agree, but I think it goes deeper.-a If someone is wantonly sinning,
with little regard for their faith, then does that person even belong
to Christ?-a Someone who is in a struggle with sin and dies before
they've been able to overcome it (and that's any sin, not just
sexual), then I don't think their salvation is in danger.
We agree.
Maybe just me, I have never been one for tradition, so although if in
a CofE church I would take part in communion, I was much happier
having a piece of real bread and a drop of wine or fruit juice. 1
Corinthians 14 sets a good example of church for me.-a I would also say
2 or more people sat in a kitchen at home could equally break bread
and it be valid, it doesn't need to be performed by a Priest dressed
in robes. However, I hasten to add that for some people that works and
I'm not saying they're wrong.
I agree with you over the bread and wine in a kitchen, but there are occasions when a more formal service is appropriate. One can think of
the Coronation or Remembrance Sunday, or even a wedding. Slinging a loaf
of Hovis on the table and saying, "Help yerself, chum" would be disrespectful to the occasion and - with a view to the occasion - to God
as well.
They would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.
Exactly, and that's my point.
The inner voice of the Spirit is all too easy to ignore or
misunderstand. Something in writing is clear and definite.
I wouldn't dream of slinging a loaf of Hovis on the table and saying
Help yourself chum, even if the occasion was entirely informal.-a "Do
this in remembrance of me" so the utmost respect would be given.
ROFL Given the many different interpretations of what the bible says,
even on this newsgroup, I'd say the written word was equally unreliable, wouldn't you?
(just being written down does not preclude the possibility of ambiguityNo, but it makes it much more unlikely. More importantly, something
or misunderstaning)
On 09/03/2026 22:21, John wrote:
I wouldn't dream of slinging a loaf of Hovis on the table and saying
Help yourself chum, even if the occasion was entirely informal.-a "Do
this in remembrance of me" so the utmost respect would be given.
Quite so - which is all that is intended by the various rituals and ceremonies.
ROFL Given the many different interpretations of what the bible says,
even on this newsgroup, I'd say the written word was equally
unreliable, wouldn't you?
No, the written word is reliable; it is humans interpreting the word
which is dodgy.
For example, the 2nd commandment against worshipping or even revering images, is absolutely clear. Orthodox and Catholics get round it by splitting hairs over the exact meaning of "worship", but that is their problem. The written word is clear.
My girl-friend, formerly a Catholic, wrote to me the other day with this comment, which I found intensely interesting.
"By taking the Sacred Heart picture off my bedroom wall I had to look up
and not at the picture. It is a discipline that seems to work and I can
feel more reassured that God or the Holy Spirit have heard me. Does that sound odd?"
In other words, in her experience, such a picture was a hindrance to
true devotion, not an aid to devotion.
And every denomination interprets it differently. Your beliefs will be shaped by the denomination you're a part of.-a Surely, if the bible is intended as God's word to His people, it would have been written in such
a way that it couldn't be open to interpretation?
Maybe now you've taught her that an image isn't necessary, but as a Catholic, surely that was her connection to God?-a I'm not saying she was right to have the image btw, but if it brought her a connection is that
a good or a bad thing?-a If she was revering the sacred heart image, I
may agree, if it was the image that connected her to Christ, then maybe
not a bad thing (for a Catholic)
As an aside, does that apply to all Icony the churches display, forI see no problem with a cross or even a church-ful of religious art *so
eaxample most churches will display a cross, is hat right, or even an
image of Jesus displayed on the wall?
On 10/03/2026 12:57, John wrote:
And every denomination interprets it differently. Your beliefs will be
shaped by the denomination you're a part of.-a Surely, if the bible is
intended as God's word to His people, it would have been written in
such a way that it couldn't be open to interpretation?
And then we would end up with something as out-of-date and inflexible as Muslim sharia.
I was painting the interior of an SDA church once and rested my
paintbrush and tin of paint on the table at the front and was promptly
told off by the elder's wife because that was "the communion table". I apologised and removed the offending articles, but I deplored the
attitude which, in my opinion, turned the table into an idol.
I once rested a bag on a bench in the local Salvation Army place and the captain asked me to remove it as that was their "mercy seat". Again, I apologised and removed the bag, but I suspect the bench had become an idol.
I'm speaking more of the NT, The Jewish law set specific commands, with punishments meted out to those who disobeyed. Are some of them really
any different from Shariah law?
I agree with your point of view in regards to those two incidents.-a Out
of interest whats your view on genuflecting? It's not something I
practiced but CofE churches do (maybe not so much now)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:34:58 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,324 |