Ireland: Not happy

[tones]

(Ha-Satan in Hebrew, surely. )
I'd read somewhere the concept of Satan was picked up by the Jews from zoroastrianism (presumably during their time as guests of the Persian Empire), but reading the bulky Wikipedia article on Satan it seems a little more complicated than that.

My mistake, thank you for the correction - should have checked before writing.

Jesus clearly believed in the devil (from the Greek diabolos), and he (the devil) occurs frequently in the NT. So clearly the concept had made its way into Jewish thinking at the time, at least in the Pharisees' thinking (probably not at all in the thinking of the aristocratic Sadducees, who held that only the Pentateuch was valid scripture). Curiously, modern-day Judaism, which was essentially a construct of the Pharisees (Sadducees were the party of the Temple, and its destruction by Titus in AD70 rendered them homeless) does not recognise the existence of any such being.

 

[PsB]

My mistake, thank you for the correction - should have checked before writing.

Jesus clearly believed in the devil (from the Greek diabolos), and he (the devil) occurs frequently in the NT. So clearly the concept had made its way into Jewish thinking at the time, at least in the Pharisees' thinking (probably not at all in the thinking of the aristocratic Sadducees, who held that only the Pentateuch was valid scripture). Curiously, modern-day Judaism, which was essentially a construct of the Pharisees (Sadducees were the party of the Temple, and its destruction by Titus in AD70 rendered them homeless) does not recognise the existence of any such being.

And the same article indicates that
Beelzebub, meaning "Lord of Flies", is the contemptuous name given in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament to a Philistine god whose original name has been reconstructed as most probably "Ba'al Zabul", meaning "Baal the Prince".

 

[Finnegan]

Bewildering number of names, bewildering number of guises.

 

[tones]

I think with Christianity being an off shoot of Jewish religion, the Catholic meaning being that it embraced Gentiles as well as Jews. There may be other meanings too of course.

It was this offshootism that allowed Christianity to grow. Judaism had special privileges under the Roman Empire (Jews were not subject to compulsory military service, but had to endure higher taxation because of it). The fact that it was an exclusive belief also made it more acceptable, and the Romans were generally tolerant of other people's religions. They initially couldn't tell the two apart. By the time they realised that this new religion was inclusive, which, coupled with its vigorous denial of emperor worship, made it more dangerous, the horse had disappeared over the horizon.

Catholicism developed when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion, and it was regarded as the universal (catholic) church. Not everyone accepted this, leading to the famous split with the Orthodox Rite (and mutual excommunications) in 10 hundred and something.

 

[PsB]

Catholicism developed when Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion, and it was regarded as the universal (catholic) church. Not everyone accepted this, leading to the famous split with the Orthodox Rite (and mutual excommunications) in 10 hundred and something.

The split endures. I forget how we got into a conversation* about religion during a coffee break with 2 Ukrainian/Russians that were doing renovation work on our house. My wife said she is a Protestant (sort of). The one with more language skills translated for his colleague, and the word he used was "heretic". The colleague nodded.

*using a mixture of English, pidgin-Polish and Google Translate

 

[tones]

That Other Bit Of Ireland is also not happy, courtesy of today's Belfast Telegraph:

Hardline DUP elements have vowed to turn tomorrow night’s meeting of the party executive into a “bloodbath” as Sir Jeffrey Donaldson pushes ahead with plans to restore the Assembly.
The 130 members are to be briefed on the context of the deal around the Windsor Framework. Should a majority give it their backing, that will pave the way for a DUP return to Stormont.
Crucially, though, the exact text of the agreement will not be presented to the executive tomorrow night — something that has been seized upon by DUP hardliners.
They insist this is because the Donaldson camp does not want it to be scrutinised.
However, DUP sources who favour an Assembly return said executive members would be told enough at Monday’s meeting to leave them “well informed”.
“Sir Jeffrey won’t be providing the legal text of the deal to members, meaning it cannot be scrutinised,” a DUP source told Sunday Life.
“That is going to turn the executive meeting into a bloodbath. DUP rank and file will never accept an Irish Sea border no matter how it is dressed up.
“There will be protests outside the offices of any DUP party executive member who supports this.”

But then, they were only ever happy when they could lord it over The Other Lot.

 

[lexi]

Tribalism Politics Religion........ an intermixed Human Trinity of everything good and bad. Emperor Julian is quite interesting in all of the early days. Paganism is the oldest of all and most of what we name is in awe of it. Days, Planets ,Body parts, Companies et all. All the religions pay homage to it despite what some may say. Most religions have an alignment with each other in many ways. Mythology, Parables, Supposed Holy Scripture ( some good Philosophy ) . All just life and SOTA at the time.. We move on..........or do we? Maybe "there is nothing new under the Sun" as it was said in Scripture.
I think the figure Jesus may have been Essene . His cousin John liked to do a lot of water antics and lived the acetic life, staying in his campervan out in the desert playing his collection of Gratefull Dead in peace and quiet away from moaning faced Scribes! He did the head shaving etc, which is what they were known for. I think they were dead against the Sadducees and Pharisees which may explain why Jesus had the many confrontations with that lot. This is off the top of my head so go easy.

 

[hifinutt]

Well interesting video . The church of England has comprehensive guidance on allowing iftars in churches [ the meal celebrated to break the fast in Islam ]

These particular guidelines on hosting iftars have been prepared by Presence & Engagement inpartnership with the Christian Muslim Forum. They are aimed at Anglican clergy, but may also be ofinterest to lay people and ministers of other Christian denominations working in diverse settings.Within most dioceses there is a designated interfaith adviser, who can be consulted for furtherassistance. To find their contact details plus other information and resources, go towww.presenceandengagement.org.uk. For more information about the Christian Muslim Forum, seewww.christianmuslimforum.org.
An iftar is an evening meal with which Muslims end their daily fast during the month of Ramadan,having abstained from all food and drink since dawn. The meal itself is not a service or act of worship,however prayers will usually take place in between the initial breaking of the fast with a small item offood, and the main meal.This guidance is intended to help you think through whether your church might host an iftar. To doso, you’ll probably need two rooms or spaces – one for the main part of the event, and one whereMuslims can pray. The space for prayers should not be a consecrated space, and more informationabout this is given below.

https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/hosting-iftars-resource.pdf

Dialogue - Resources

This section of the website contains resources about dialogue and different themes/ areas within dialogue.

www.interfaith.org.uk

I have a few connections with the feast charity bringing all faiths including muslim and christian together to explore many areas

We celebrate difference: we want to acknowledge our differences and delight in learning about one another and from one another, even when we disagree! We believe that unity is diversity embraced. We see diversity as a strength and are open and inclusive. We love talking about our faith, culture and background.

We are positive: we always look and hope for the best in people, situations and stories. We love to celebrate life together with fun, in joy and through the sharing of food.

We are authentic: we are honest and open and create a safe environment for others to be the same. We talk personally about who we are and allow others to do the same. We also recognise that for many young people, celebration is not always a lived-in reality and journeying with them, gives every young person permission to celebrate and to grieve. We are not scared of difficult conversations using our guidelines for dialogue.

What we do | The Feast

thefeast.org.uk

The chap in this video just need to step back and explore these differences of opinion in a different arena and this `hate ` filled rhetoric does no one any good at all .

 

[tones]

Tribalism Politics Religion........ an intermixed Human Trinity of everything good and bad. Emperor Julian is quite interesting in all of the early days. Paganism is the oldest of all and most of what we name is in awe of it. Days, Planets ,Body parts, Companies et all. All the religions pay homage to it despite what some may say. Most religions have an alignment with each other in many ways. Mythology, Parables, Supposed Holy Scripture ( some good Philosophy ) . All just life and SOTA at the time.. We move on..........or do we? Maybe "there is nothing new under the Sun" as it was said in Scripture.
I think the figure Jesus may have been Essene . His cousin John liked to do a lot of water antics and lived the acetic life, staying in his campervan out in the desert playing his collection of Gratefull Dead in peace and quiet away from moaning faced Scribes! He did the head shaving etc, which is what they were known for. I think they were dead against the Sadducees and Pharisees which may explain why Jesus had the many confrontations with that lot. This is off the top of my head so go easy.

Jesus and the Pharisees were in many way natural allies (see the way they enjoy Jesus's ripping the carpet out from under the feet of the Sadducees in Luke 20:27-39). However, his claim to be the long-awaited Messiah was not only a contradiction of what they thought the Messiah should be (someone to get rid of the hated Romans), but also a threat to their exalted position among the people. He had to go, especially after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, deliberately fulfilling a Messianic sign spoken about in Zechariah.

 

[KrisW]

The original video seems to have been dug up from quite a while ago, as the American woman mentions a 50-person limit in church due to Covid19. That restriction went away in early 2022.

Also, as noted already, the accents give away this "grass roots" protest for the sham it is: the protesters who speak in the video are clearly Northern Irish.

The most incongruous part of it is the "Irish Republic" flag one of them holds. This was the flag flown by the Irish Citizen Army during the 1916 Easter Rising. The Citizen Army was the Socialist Labour faction in the Irish Independence movement, and broadly condemned by the Catholic Church for that political position. The other flag appears to be yet another of those Nazi-nua emblems that you see at this kind of protest: this one is more Benito than Adolf, but I suppose they'd describe themselves as Roman Catholics so it fits.

But really, for someone who claims that Ireland belongs to Jesus, he seems to know very little about either.

I'm finding the theological discussion interesting, though..

 

[hifinutt]

one Islamic view on this :

Can a Muslim Pray in a Church or a Synagogue? | About Islam

It is permissible to pray in any place, as long the place is clean). However, praying in a church, temple or any other religious place without necessity is makruh.

aboutislam.net

• A Muslim is allowed to perform prayer in a church if he is forced to pray there.
• If a Muslim prays in a church without necessity his prayer is valid but still it is reprehensible or makruh.
• Whenever the necessity warrants a Muslim to perform prayer in a church, he should obtain the prior permission of the church authorities as Islam respects other people’s places of worship.

A traveling Muslim may be allowed to perform prayer in a church if he failed to recognize a nearby mosque on his way. It is not necessary that a Muslim who does not know the mosque to perform prayer in a church as there are many other places to perform prayer.

The reason why it is not recommended for a Muslim to pray in a church is that a Muslim praying there may be distracted during performing prayer by the crosses, statues as well other Christian symbols drawn on the wall of the church.
It is possible that some people of those religions may not like to see us praying in their places of worship and we should not hurt other people’s feelings. If we have to pray in those places then we should take proper permission from the authorities that govern those sanctuaries.

Allah Almighty knows best.

Can a Muslim Pray in a Church or a Synagogue? | About Islam

It is permissible to pray in any place, as long the place is clean). However, praying in a church, temple or any other religious place without necessity is makruh.

aboutislam.net

Makruh means

Reprehensible, detested, hateful, odious

Reprehensible, detested, hateful, odious. Usually refers to one of the five legal values in Islamic law (the other four are fard or wajib, obligatory; mustahabb or mandub, preferred; halal, permissible; and haram, prohibited). Makruh acts are not legally forbidden but discouraged.

 

[hifinutt]

some newspaper articles

Priest targeted for letting two Muslims say blessing during mass

Exclusive: Fr Stephen Farragher was accused of ‘bringing foreign satanic cultists’ into the church and being a ‘heretic’

www.irishmirror.ie

an another example happened in 2015 and this was one response from Catholic Herald

https://catholicherald.co.uk/churches-should-not-be-used-for-muslim-worship/

Needless to say I am firmly on the side of our evangelical brethren on this one. No Christian church, if it wants to remain a Christian church, and no other church property, even a church hall, should ever be used for Muslim worship. The reason is a straightforward one: once a place has been used for Muslim worship it is ipso facto a mosque – or so some Muslims tell us. So it is clearly not a good idea to let your church be converted into a mosque, because once it is a mosque, it cannot be converted back, or so it is claimed.

This story – Muslim prayers in Christian buildings – is a remarkably common one, and it keeps on popping up again and again in the media. It is a running saga in Spain, where, it seems, a group of Muslims are keen to reclaim their perceived rights over Cordoba Cathedral.

Most of us have heard of the theology of replacement, or supercessionism, which are terms usually used with reference to the Jews and the promises of the Old Testament. Catholics do not hold to such a theology, and we do not see the Covenant with the Jews as having been cancelled. But Islam has a theology of replacement, as far as I can see: for them it is natural that all churches, like the Haghia Sophia, should become mosques, as they regard Mohamed as the “seal” of the prophets. Therefore church into mosque is a sort of natural progression (the other way around would be regression.) Moreover, in a belief that strikes one as having it both ways, they see the natural state of mankind in the beginning as Islamic: they regard Adam as the first prophet, and see his life in the Garden of Eden as an Islamic one. So if a Christian becomes a Muslim they are at once progressing and at the same time reverting to the original state of humanity.

 

[lexi]

But really, for someone who claims that Ireland belongs to Jesus, he seems to know very little about either.

That was a classic!

 

[Finnegan]

Is there any actual credible evidence for the existence of a Jesus? My understanding is the pre-eminent contemporary Roman historian, Josephus, makes no explicit mention of Jesus. Millenarians, zealots and ascetics were ten a penny in those days. Such a figure is likely to be a composite character. The Canonical gospels were written some one to four hundred years after the supposed life of Jesus, and are contradictory. This isn’t even to mention the Apocrypha, and why those were omitted from the Bible.

 

[tones]

Is there any actual credible evidence for the existence of a Jesus? My understanding is the pre-eminent contemporary Roman historian, Josephus, makes no explicit mention of Jesus. Millenarians, zealots and ascetics were ten a penny in those days. Such a figure is likely to be a composite character. The Canonical gospels were written some one to four hundred years after the supposed life of Jesus, and are contradictory. This isn’t even to mention the Apocrypha, and why those were omitted from the Bible.

Direct quote from Josephus:

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Authentic yes, but doctored?

 

[hifinutt]

Is there any actual credible evidence for the existence of a Jesus? My understanding is the pre-eminent contemporary Roman historian, Josephus, makes no explicit mention of Jesus. Millenarians, zealots and ascetics were ten a penny in those days. Such a figure is likely to be a composite character. The Canonical gospels were written some one to four hundred years after the supposed life of Jesus, and are contradictory. This isn’t even to mention the Apocrypha, and why those were omitted from the Bible.

63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
From The Works of Josephus,
translated by William Whiston
Hendrickson Publishers, 1987

 

[hifinutt]

Is there any actual credible evidence for the existence of a Jesus? My understanding is the pre-eminent contemporary Roman historian, Josephus, makes no explicit mention of Jesus. Millenarians, zealots and ascetics were ten a penny in those days. Such a figure is likely to be a composite character. The Canonical gospels were written some one to four hundred years after the supposed life of Jesus, and are contradictory. This isn’t even to mention the Apocrypha, and why those were omitted from the Bible.

probably better to do a separate thread as this one on a separate issue

plenty here though and millions of books written on the aformentioned gentleman

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

this is a brilliant book on the subject too

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-that-Demands-Verdict-Anglicized/dp/1780788320/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

 

[Finnegan]

Yes but I’ve also read sources that contradict what you both have cited. For starters, and most obviously, the name Jesus is likely to be a corruption of Yahweh, as Spanish names would have been uncommon in Judea at that time.

“How did his manuscript survive at all? It must have been copied dozens of times and kept and cherished by the earliest Christian monks who recognised it as a very important historical document, referring as it did to the times of Jesus. In fact they regarded the document as so important that they could not understand why there was no mention of the person of Jesus. Believing that Josephus had made a mistake, one of their number thoughtfully added in a brief reference! Not surprisingly this reference is the source of heated debate, but nearly all modern Christian historians and theologians now recognise it as a forgery.”

John Rose: Jesus - history's most famous missing person (Winter 1999)

John Rose: Jesus - history's most famous missing person (Winter 1999)

www.marxists.org

 

[Finnegan]

I have also found the following extremely illuminating:

A History Of Religion East & West- Trevor Ling. Not specifically concerned with proving or disproving the existence of Jesus, but a very useful examination of the development of religion in general.

The Meek & The Militant- Paul N. Siegel. Again, not Jesus specific, but a richly detailed account of the historical origins of the major faiths.

The Roots Of Christianity- Karl Kautsky. About as good a materialist overview of the development of Christianity as you‘re likely to find.

 

[Finnegan]

Not forgetting of course the master of misanthropy, Samuel Beckett’s perspicacious observation from Godot’s Vladimir that only two of the Canonical gospels mention the thief who was saved on Calvary. If the most important message of Christianity is the potential for redemption through confession and renouncing sin, why do 50% of the supposed accounts of the life of Jesus omit this seminal part of Christian theology?