Jahnu wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:39:04 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jahnu wrote:
>
>
>>>"Can a vegetarian diet improve or restore health? Can it prevent
>>>certain diseases?
>>
>>This is not the issue, punk. You are not
>>(pseudo)-"vegan" for health reasons. You make the
>>uninformed choice for allegedly "ethical" reasons. We
>>see, clearly, that your ethics is bogus, because you
>>STILL cause suffering and death for animals with your
>>dietary choice.
>
>
> It doesn't matter for what reason I am a vegetarian

It does matter. You are "vegan" for ethical reasons,
and we clearly see they are bogus because you STILL
cause suffering and death for animals with your food
choice. Why do you do so?

Jahnu wrote:
<...>
> Says a blood thirsty demon who worships his spiritual master hanging
> bleeding and suffering on a pole, and who brandishes slogans like
> 'purified in the blood of the lamb.'

Yes, and it was said to another person who (presumably) venerates him.
Many Hindus also venerate Jesus and see our bhakti as no different than
their own. I now realize you are not one of them, which really doesn't
surprise me. Don't worry, Jahnu, I don't cast my pearls before swine.

<snip>

You have some kind of beef with Henry VIII, evidently -- or you just
have a beef with me and want to be contrary. I'm not saying Henry
was a nice guy; in many ways, he wasn't. Nor am I saying his personal
life was above reproach -- it wasn't. What I AM saying -- which was
absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
time. He was, doctrinally, a staunch Catholic (Romanist ). He opposed
every Protestant change suggested by anyone around him, except the
authority of the Pope over the Church in England. In that, he went
back to a Byzantine/Roman concept -- the authority of the Emperor
within his empire -- not forward to the radical Protestant concept of
the time. Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
including Anne Bolyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived. Cranmer and
Catherine Parr both came close to being executed as Protestants,
although Cromwell eventually got axed for entirely different reasons
(hooking Henry up with Anne of Cleaves). Several others got axed
(like Thomas Moore) for refusing to accept Henry's break with the Pope.

usual suspect wrote:
> Rat wrote:

>> <snip>

> Yet again you chose to snip rather than apologize (I did cease with the
> altering of your name and you've not given me credit).

Thanks.

> You also failed
> to explain why the British monarch swears to defend the "Protestant and
> reformed" faith in his or her coronation oath. That oath, if you looked
> at the link, goes back to 1689. It is hardly a novelty.

Yes, I know. Geez, I was just bringing in a bit of Episcopalian
stuff, the conflict between the Low, Broad, and High church, which
is pretty much a dead issue now, but was quite lively when I was
growing up. Yeah, yeah, there are Protestant aspect to the
Episcopal church, but Anglo-Catholics like to play those down, and
have always stressed that we are Catholic and catholic, not Protestant.
We're not a Protestant denomination in the same way the Presbyterians
or Baptists, or low-church Lutherans are, however. Here we follow
another Via Media. We have the Apostolic Succession for our clergy
(although it came through Scotland, not England). We are more like
the Orthodox in being Catholic but non-Roman than were are like the
more radical Protestant denominations. We most certainly are not
Protestant in the same way the other non-apostolic churches are.

>>>>> The grounds he sought were not on the primacy of the pope, but
>>>>> rather on the grounds that Catherine could not bear him a male
>>>>> heir. That is not a valid ground in Scripture *or* tradition.

>>>> He considered that he and Catherine were childless because he had
>>>> broken God's law. He wanted to correct that situation.

>>> By breaking God's law again? lol

<snip>
>> by removing himself from what he saw as a non-marriage, a real
>> "living in sin" with Catherine, who, Henry believed, was not his wife.

> Sin is a matter of breaking God's law. Are expedience and practicality
> really valid excuses? Face it, Karen, Henry had gone to some trouble to
> marry Catherine.

No, his father had. Henry wasn't independent yet.

> They *were* married.

Questionable. The Romans said yes, some pro-Roman Englishmen, like
Moore and Fisher said yes; the non-Roman English and Henry said no.

> They consummated the marriage. She
> bore him children.

So? That does not make it a marriage, if the marriage is invalid.

> The only fly in the ointment is she did not bear a
> surviving son -- iirc, she bore him one that died shortly after birth.

Several.

>>>>> The pope refused annulment on doctrinal, not political, grounds.

>>>> Suuuuure he did...Nobody believed that then, and they don't now.

>>> According to what you add below, it was on *practical* and
>>> *political* grounds that Henry sought the divorce.

As I say, it was on several grounds -- religious ( I do believe he
was sincere here ), political, and personal. The Pope refused the
annulment on several grounds, but PRIMARILY on political grounds,
because he could not go against the Emperor with the Emperor's
troops siting on his doorstep. Face it -- the Pope was a politician;
he had very little choice if he wanted to stay Pope. The Pope didn't
want to lose England, and tried various stalling tactics to
placate Henry, but finally gave up when Henry got tired of waiting.

>> It was both. He evidently

> ...wanted everything his way.

Yep, that was Henry, all right.

> First he wanted the dispensation to marry
> Catherine.

The point is, that wasn't primarily Henry's decision. It was
part of his father's political strategy. If Arthur had lived,
Henry wouldn't have been married off to Catherine.

> Then when it wasn't all it was cracked up to be, he wanted
> out. Then he married someone before his divorce was final. He'd gotten
> her pregnant before marriage, meaning the child was a *******. This is
> hardly a good role model.

Well, yes; the reason he married Anne at that point was that she was
pregnant and he wanted the child to have a clear title to the throne
if it was a boy. Alas, he got another girl. No one could foresee
at the time that Elizabeth would be the success she turned out to be.
Both mothers -- Anne and Catherine -- were fighting for their children's
legitimacy. Henry tried to get Catherine to agree her marriage was
invalid and retreat quietly to a comfortable and prestigious convent.
She might have done so, but she wanted Mary to be seen as legitimate.
Anne wanted her child to be legitimate. Both girls were eventually
included in the succession, which was kind of weird -- but there you are.

>> had genuine religious qualms

> Sounds like he had plenty of other qualms and chose to make a doctrinal
> issue out of one small part of it.

Partly, I'm sure. But most historians believe he also had genuine
religious issues with the marriage. He believed God was sending him
a sign in the deaths of his male children by Catherine.

>> AND he had a
>> strong sense of obligation to the English people, whose king he was.

> Too bad his sense of obligation didn't extend to his wife, the church,
> or the children he had with Catherine.

It did. As I said, he tried to get Catherine to go quietly to a
comfortable convent. He didn't want to hurt her. He finally got really
angry when she refused to give in, but that was Henry. Catherine was
partly at fault too. It was just an ugly situation all around.
He loved Mary (the only one of his children with Catherine who lived),
but sent her from court until she accepted Elizabeth as heir. Yes,
Henry treated Catherine and Mary badly, but they played a part in that,
too. Henry certainly felt an obligation to the Church.

> This all sounds familiar, as in
> when one tries to save the world (or at least stray animals) while
> shirking familial obligations.

Ah -- now I get it. You think you have to make Henry out as a
Bad Person because I supposedly support Henry. Hey -- I have
a lot of issues with Henry myself. He was far from perfect, and
he was certainly nasty and violent and egotistical and pig-headed
and self-indulgent in many ways. But he was NOT a Protestant.
Accept the historical fact: HENRY WAS NOT A PROTESTANT. People
who watch movies and read soppy popular novels see Henry as a
villain because they feel for Catherine or Anne, or Moore, or
any of the other people Henry executed. We always feel for the
victims. But we also have to look at the history of the times.
Henry was no worse than most of the other monarchs of his
tim. If you want libertine, look at Francis -- who laughed at
Henry because he was so careful about marrying his mistresses.
If you want fanatic, look at Ferdinand. If you want violent,
look at the German princes in the Peasants' Revolt (and Luther
in his support of the princes.) It was a violent and fanatical
period, and full of politics, as every period is.

>> Plus, he wanted to marry Anne.

> He did, before his divorce

annulment

> was announced. That made him a bigamist: a
> criminal in his own land and before the church.

Oh, give it up. Henry didn't believe his marriage was valid. If
he wasn't married, he couldn't be a bigamist.

>>>>>> Henry wanted to divorce his
>>>>> wife for one reason only: she didn't bear him a living male heir.
>>>>> That is not grounds for divorce for king or commoner.

>>>> It is for a king whose country has just come out of generations of
>>>> civil war and who foresees -- accurately, as it turned out --
>>>> that lack of a living male heir would bring back civil wars.

>>> Those are not Biblical or doctrinal grounds. Those are practical,
>>> political grounds.

Yes, political grounds are very important for kings.

>> Which are important for a king.

> *Not* for a theologian, bishop, etc.

Which was why Henry also presented his religious grounds. The
point was that most of the noble families had some kind of
political issue with Church canon; the Church was always
fiddling with the literal letter of Canon so that noble families
could make marriages for political reasons. Henry had every
reason to believe, when he went to the Pope, that he would get
an annulment, for the same basic reasons his father did. But the
Pope couldn't give Henry an annulment because the Pope was in a
political bind at the time. The issue was political on BOTH sides.

>>> The RCC of that day was no doubt with its flaws, but it did uphold
>>> the sanctity -- THE SACRAMENT -- of marriage.

>> That's laughable. Dispensations and maneuvering for political
>> reasons were rampant among all the feudal class, to say the least,
>> and the Pope was up to his neck in it. The Pope was a prince
>> himself, and a politician. What do you think Luther was so upset
>> about?

> Several issues, but the Reformation was much more than a political shake
> up. At its heart was the teachings (doctrine) of the church, not its
> polity.

Both.

> <snip>

>> He believed it was invalid. What else should he have done except seek
>> an annulment of it?

> He had children in that "not-marriage." It was a divorce.

So, if someone has children out of wedlock, that makes the
relationship a marriage? If so, Henry was married to Bessie
Blount, and his marriage to Catherine was invalid before he
even met Anne.

>>> nor would he have committed bigamy by marrying Anne before his
>>> divorce was announced,

>> Wasn't bigamy, if his marriage to Catherine was invalid -- he wasn't
>> married.

> So all those children of his were *******s?

Don't give me a straight line like that.

All were eventually accepted as valid heirs, although the Catholic
countries refused to accept Elizabeth -- for political reasons,
again.

>>> nor impregnated her even before their marriage

>> True -- but fairly trivial.

> Not trivial at all.

In the great political situation -- trivial.

>>> , nor had Mary executed,

>> What do you mean by that? Which Mary?
>> Oh -- I think you mean Anne.

> Yes, I did.

Yes, his case against Anne is generally agreed to be shoddy
at best.

>>> nor would he have dressed up and celebrated the death of Catherine,

>> True, that was crass, to say the least.

> I'm glad you agree.

>>> nor would he have been cavorting with Jane Seymour while still
>>> married to Mary.

>> Anne. Evidently, Jane remained a virgin until Henry married her.

> How would anyone else know?

No one knows for sure, but it's very probable. Jane's handlers had
learned from Anne's career.

>> True, again, it was crass to have been flirting with her before
>> Anne was dead, but there doesn't seem to be any solid evidence
>> Henry slept with her before they were married.

> His sleazy track record, perhaps?

No, his track record with Anne was what made Jane's handlers
determined that she WOULDN'T sleep with him before marriage.
Bessie Blout got bounced. Anne's sister got bounced. Anne,
who held out for several years, got the crown. Jane's
family were no dummies, there.

>>> I suppose you excuse all his excesses just as you've tried with the
>>> grounds for his first divorce.

>> No, actually I think he was an obnoxious, arrogant SOB, but there
>> were reasons both religious and political for Henry's actions,

> No, just political.

No, not JUST political.

> You seem to either gloss over or be blind to the
> fact that he was a political opportunist.

Most kings are. It comes with the job.

> His divorce was sought on
> political grounds, not doctrinal

Both.

>; it was a matter of practical
> expedience. Had the rest of Europe not been engaged in religious
> upheaval, I believe he'd've eventually suffered the wrath of papal bulls
> just as Luther, Calvin, et al, were,

He did.

> and quite probably faced death
> himself.

Unlikely. He was king in England. The Pope couldn't enforce anything
more violent than excommunication.

>That or he *never* would've seized the opportunity to break
> with Rome. Then you'd still be a Romanist.

Yes, as I said, Henry never WANTED to break with Rome.
He was not a Protestant. He was the Defender of the Faith.
He was pro-Rome in the battles with the Continental reformers.
His prime minister (Wolsey) was a Roman cardinal. He wanted
to stay with Rome. He TRIED to go through channels in the
Roman way, and waited several years hoping to get his
annulment from Rome. But the situation got out of hand, and
he ended up breaking with the authority of the Pope, while
keeping most of the Roman elements in the Church.

>> and
>> -- which was the original point -- they were not that Henry was
>> a protestant by any definition,

> Yes, he was. He "protested" over certain standing claims of the Roman
> bishop, namely the refusal of the latter to grant annulment of a
> marriage which bore children. Henry may not have been a reformer in the
> doctrinal sense, but he was a protestant. That's not a bad thing, it's
> not a good thing. It just is.

*Sigh* Henry was not a Protestant in the religious meaning of the term.

>> any more than Henry II was a
>> protestant when he had his differences with the Pope in his day.
>> Edward was, and so was Elizabeth, but Henry was not. It was the
>> Elizabethan settlement which established the Anglican church.

> That's an historical, not doctrinal, distinction.

Oh, very much doctrinal. There were a number of major changes
under Elizabeth which modified the more extreme Protestant
views of Edward's day without bringing back the Roman views of
Henry's day. It was obvious, for example, in the Words of
Institution in the Mass, which combined the Roman and the
Protestant formula in an uneasy juggling act. It established
the Via Media which has remained the Anglican tradition. The
church went in one direction ( more Low Church ) during the
18th century, then swung back toward High Church with the
Oxford Movement of the mid-to-late 19th century, and has moved on in
new directions since the 1979 Prayer Book, again in a more
Protestant direction in some ways, although more in style than
doctrine. There are definitely things in the Church which have changed
in ways I don't like, but I didn't want to go with the group
that split off after the 1979 Prayer Book.

<snip>
Rat

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.business.agriculture.]
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:00:32 GMT, usual suspect wrote:
>> in old theory on church/state relations going back to Constantine
>> by claiming "This England is an Empire" and thus Henry, as king, had
>> the same authority in his own realm as the Emperor had had in the
>> Roman Empire as the representative of God. This was standard theory
>> in the non-Roman nations in the Reformation period.
>
> In another sense, the Reformation was similarly based in old "theories"
> about the grace, faith, and Scripture alone (pre-)dating to Augustine's
> time. Luther was an Augustinian monk; his 95 theses were consistent with
> Augustine and other church fathers.

Sorry, I just started to read this thread (some of which is very funny
in its irrevelence), but WHO is Sylvia? Sylvia Plat?


Al Firan RumaiDin
97.025% of statistics are wrong

"Vegetarian" is an old Eskimo word that means "poor hunter."

Kiana,

Jan in Alaska

Jesus & vegetarianism

So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.

To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are citizens of the
spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our valuable time
in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and turn with
great determination towards spiritual life our life will be a loss and
end up in disappointment.

On the other side when we start taking about the resurrection of the
flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are theological
concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus from Paul on
and really miss the point of his actual teachings to mankind.

Quote from the book "Food for peace":

Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief that Christ
ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But
close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast
majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe, brome, and
other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the broadest sense.
For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus raised a
woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The original
Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only "to eat".
So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."

The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and it is never
used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the disciples offered
him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can guess which
one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to
Jesus eating meat.

This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall
eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from the good."
(Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating destroys all good
discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).

Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words: "...and if you
had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ...you
would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which clearly
disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse taken from
Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd part of the
sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).

He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal sacrifices, violently
driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the
money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).

His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a house of trade
(which in earlier translations always was translated as "murders'
den").

We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist was
refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust (bean) and
wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris: locust/honey)

But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which points to
Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus' twelve
disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know). This naturally
reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not greater than
his master..." (John 14:16).

The seven a

1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..." (Clem. Hom.
XII,6)

2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather Hegesippus
(about 160 AD) is stating:

"...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives
the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes
as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the
government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been
called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the present day;
for there were many that bore the name James.

'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor strong
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head, he did not
anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was
permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen but linen
garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple,
and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the
people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in
consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7, Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y., 1890, Vol I,
p.125)

It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James, the brother of
Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would apply that Mary
was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat as a child.
That being the case one would think it to be clear that the whole
family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian. In that sense
the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from his mother's
womb" is most indicative pointing towards the vegetarianism of Jesus.

3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which actually were
widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this disciple of
Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from
eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread, with salt and
drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and
winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to
others."

4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a demon
dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts, fruits and
vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the
extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On Eating)
(Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the vegetarianism of
John the Baptist.)

5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts 1:21-26). His food
as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the same as
Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)

6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both flesh and
faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the Baptists'
followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet. (See above
under Matthew)

Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or eat flesh..."
(Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems altogether
somewhat less categorical.

Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature by many of
the Fathers of the early Church:

"...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as having come
eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I think that He
who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty 'Blessed,' who
professed His work to be the completion of His Father's Will, I think
that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for that 'Meat'
which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common prayers
petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." - Quintus
Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).

This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments of the
writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
"...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the heathens
worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts, through
participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with devils..."
(2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)

Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer exhorts in one of
his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their hands and
hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and nuts, and
vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not within a
temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables, vegetables,
roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" - Churchfather Clement of
Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)

"...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of
animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of flesh is of
demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No streams of
blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of head. Nor are
horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable fumes from
the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)

A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished and much
cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of the
Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the Vulgate, the
authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.

The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29 meat-eating
is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
They will be yours for food..."

However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all of a sudden
permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts
of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that
moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are
given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food
for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you
everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in
it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)

Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who abandoned
asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up vegetarianism as the
Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule of life.

St. Jerome says:
"...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave His second
blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the
first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce
according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning,
but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses
to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to divorce your
wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the
deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to
the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our
teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10) teaches that
God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and renew in Christ
Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the
Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8; 22:13), "I
am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."

At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave
bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we
reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of
the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for food, and
divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision
was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something
superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega
passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no
longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we circumcised,
nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21), "It is good
not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was
consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book I,18)
"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One hardly can
have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." - St. Basil (AD
320 - 79)

Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the early
Christians as abstaining from meat:

Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached) referred to the
early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, as a
...."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."

Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of Nero, describes
the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition (under imperial
suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."

And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians: "...They
assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane matters but
put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one to a single
plate of one sort of innocent food..."

The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and translated from
an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills, kills his
brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his
own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and who
so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death... Kill
neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your mouth...
For life comes from life, and from death comes always death. For
everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also. And your
bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits become what
your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace

And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do with mankind
but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in the purpose
of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics is
reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened universally.
It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of thought...
Only a universal ethic which embraces every living creature can put us
in touch with the universe and the will which is there manifest..."

Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty to animals is
as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm, they have no
power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so satanic in
tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend
themselves, who are utterly in our power..."

Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of the opinion
that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya
of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are many
rascals who violate their own religious principles. While it clearly
says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill,"
they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of religions
indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons.
This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought about
unlimited calamities..."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul's teachings and interpretations


And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it himself:

"...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the cross) allows
him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in the cross) is
weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)

The smoking gun is right the It is Paul's concept of faith in the
salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete which leads
him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic fanaticism
of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.

Further proof are at hand. In fact the following statements make no
sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to convince a large
section of early Christians, that there was no problem with eating
meat.

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that
causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink
wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So
whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and
God..." (Rom 14:20-22)

In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is offended
and the community of Christians is not disturbed.

He goes on:
"If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat
whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then
do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for
conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For
why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take
part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of
something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you
do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)

In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in sacrifice,
Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is offered in
sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend others.

It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating is allowed.
There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat offered in
sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there were others
who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea of eating
meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is allowed,
according to Paul:

"Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
(1 Cor 10:25-26)

Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been Christians who
found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to buy meat in
the market.

And again mo

"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then
for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what
you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating
destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman 14:14-15)

Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly addressing
early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:

"...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain
foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who
believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good,
and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..."
(1 Timothy 4:3-4)

So we can see that there was obviously a large group of people who did
not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't let it be a
matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the market).
Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in sacrifice,
as made out by Christian theologians.

The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way how he
addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly clear that
their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.

He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem (James, Peter) as
"those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":
"...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those
"super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have
knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
(2 Cor 11:5-6)

He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the Apostles in
Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:

"...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER THAN THE
JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit from the one
you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put
up with it easily enough."
(2 Cor 11:4)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we
have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you
a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally
condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)

"And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground
from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with
us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles,
deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder,
for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:12-14)


www.krishna.com
www.iskcon.org
www.krishna.dk

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 07:12:04 +0530, Jahnu > wrote:

>
>Jesus & vegetarianism
>
>So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
>energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
>mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.
>
>To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
>even for food

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·

>(it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
>vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that.
[...]

Luke 24
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

John 21
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No," they
answered.
6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will
find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
because of the large number of fish.
[...]
9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish
on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:27:26 -0600, Paul Bramscher > wrote:

>Good list of passages there. There are lessons to both concerned
>vegetarians and quick-to-condemn Christian fundamentalists:
>
>The Bible has also advocated stoning people who collect wood on the
>Sabbath, among many other archaic, tribal and barbaric practices
>(http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/D...leContents.htm).

Leviticus 20
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who
gives[1] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people
of the community are to stone him.
[...]
9 "`If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has
cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
10 "`If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his
neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "`If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both
the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their
own heads.
12 "`If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their
own heads.
13 "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on their own heads.
14 "`If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 "`If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and
you must kill the animal.
16 "`If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both
the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.

Numbers 15
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on
the Sabbath day.
33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and
the whole assembly,
34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done
to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly
must stone him outside the camp."
36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the
LORD commanded Moses.

[...]
>Thus, the suffering of animals in cages,

Some farm animals have decent lives and some don't.

>force-feeding them steroids

Which animals are force-fed steroids, and how is it done?

>and
> animal byproducts (sometimes of their own kind!), slaughtering animals
>which cannot even walk, etc. would be placed not into literal
>what-does-the-Bible-say-about-21st-century-agriculture terms, but in
>terms of a living spirit of the word.

We are all born to die. Every one of us. Don't you think that
Christ's example has something to do with that fact?

>We might also add that modern-day
>plant substitutes for protein were not at all as widely available around
>the Bronze Age, particularly to only quasi-agricultural socities, and so
>one wouldn't expect a modern sensibility out of a pre-modern (and
>static) doctrine. At least not literally.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. That would
be 750 meals if each included 3/4 pound of meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to
the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case
of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one meal of soy or
rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of meals derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised
cattle products contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife
habitat, and better lives for cattle than soy or rice products. ·

Jahnu wrote:

> Jesus & vegetarianism

"Jahnu" and horseshit...

Jahnu > wrote in message >. ..
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:23:10 -0700, Rat & Swan >
> wrote:
>
> >And, as has been so from the beginning, we are no closer to agreement,
> >and probably never will be.
> >
> >Think what you please. But know that I am not intimidated by your
> >attacks or insults, or empty threats of God's wrath, any more than
> >those of any other fundie. You call me "DegeneRat",and I'm supposed not
> >to object. What do you expect, hypocrite? Try treating me civilly,
> >and I'll treat you civilly. "Fundie" isn't much of an insult, next to
> >what you've called me, and I think it's accurate.
> >
> >I also think you are wrong and uncharitable. So there it stands.
>
> Actually, don't be despondent. These people are demons. Like this
> Usual Suspect, he is not a vegetarian. He is a meat head and an
> atheist like all the rest. Such people are beyond reason and logic,
> common sense and even normal decency.

<snip>

Nice reasoning. So if I'm both a vegan (non-meat-head) and an atheist
does that make me a lesser demon? Only somewhat like the rest? Am I
still beyond reason, logic, common sense and decency? Or did I just
stumble upon the reason, logic, etc. that led me to my food and
lifestyle choices. Seems I recall mention that Singer is an atheist as
well, and I see Animal Liberation still listed on many pro-vegan sites
as a must-read.

Perhaps you're just as deserving of the proverbial club-to-the-head.
Or perhaps those same raging male hormones that make you so effective
at head-bashing have gotten in the way of your ability to reason, use
logic, demonstrate decency and/or common sense and have led you to
flagrantly throw about such gratuitous assumptions.

Nonetheless, I find your conclusions to be ridiculous.

Simply as an aside, to lump anyone into your category of "demons" is a
bit unfair. Likely, I am not the only vegan who, at one time in my
life ate meat, had little awareness of what the meat industry was
truly like (gruesome), and to some extent defied anyone to tell me
differently. To be more concise and to the point, I was ignorant. I
had been raised with a set of beliefs, and the idea of relinquishing
those beliefs was much like pulling the earth from beneath my feet.
Many people simply don't want to believe the stories they read about
the meat industry. Some have created for themselves the illusion that
animals are not capable of suffering. Often these are the same people
who have domestic companions and while their companions are capable of
feeling and of suffering, they maintain the hypocritical view that
animals raised for food do not have the same emotional capacity.
I know, because I was one of those people at one time. While, in
retrospect, I am repulsed by the ignorance, stupidity, and
closed-mindedness of my now-distant past, I don't believe it was Satan
or some demon from the pits of hell that had control of my being. Then
again, I don't believe in Satan, so why the hell would I, right?

My point being this: Even those of us enlightened to the world of
suffering that animals are subjected to daily are not perfect beings.
Just when you feel confident that you have found ultimate truth and
understanding, new and unrecognized knowledge lurks about the corner
waiting to pounce and... well, give you a good clubbing to the head, I
suppose.

Assumptions and over-confidence are our worst enemies - this is true
for each and every one of us. Ultimately, I hope that this serves to
educate you on your assumptions.

-Goon

Jahnu > wrote in message >. ..
> Jesus & vegetarianism
>
> So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
> energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
> mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.
>
> To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
> even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
> vegetarians, see below...

**************

Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.

Jesus helped his disciples catch fish with a net for the pupose of
eating the fish and selling the fish so that others could eat it.

- moshe

A professor (Let's call him Dunlevy) at Columbia University was teaching
evolution to his biology class at the University.

NYPD received a phone call reporting a murder....at Columbia University that
very day.....The informant accused Prof Dunlevy as the perpetrator.....

When the detectives arrived they met with the informant that directed them
to the professor's office.... The informant then accused the professor of
murdering one of the his relatives. Dunlevy said..."I don't know what this
man is talking about."

The informant stated that they had dissected a frog that day...and asked
Dunlevy if it was true....... Dunlevy said "Yes, and so?" The informant
asked the Professor if he hadn't just taught that evolution "Proves" (Which
is circular logic) that we all evolved from slime, and at one stage or
another, we were either worms..frogs..or mosquitoes.....So...He, the
informant believed that this frog was his Great Grandfather X10000...and
attempted to file charges against Dunlevy.... The detectives shrugged their
shoulders and left.



"Jahnu" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jesus & vegetarianism
>
> So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
> energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
> mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.
>
> To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
> even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
> vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are citizens of the
> spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our valuable time
> in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and turn with
> great determination towards spiritual life our life will be a loss and
> end up in disappointment.
>
> On the other side when we start taking about the resurrection of the
> flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are theological
> concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus from Paul on
> and really miss the point of his actual teachings to mankind.
>
> Quote from the book "Food for peace":
>
> Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief that Christ
> ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But
> close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast
> majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe, brome, and
> other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the broadest sense.
> For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus raised a
> woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The original
> Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only "to eat".
> So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."
>
> The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and it is never
> used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the disciples offered
> him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can guess which
> one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to
> Jesus eating meat.
>
> This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall
> conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall
> eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from the good."
> (Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating destroys all good
> discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second part of the
> sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).
>
> Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words: "...and if you
> had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ...you
> would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which clearly
> disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse taken from
> Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the knowledge of God
> more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd part of the
> sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).
>
> He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal sacrifices, violently
> driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the
> money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).
>
> His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a house of trade
> (which in earlier translations always was translated as "murders'
> den").
>
> We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist was
> refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust (bean) and
> wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris: locust/honey)
>
> But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which points to
> Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus' twelve
> disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know). This naturally
> reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not greater than
> his master..." (John 14:16).
>
> The seven a
>
> 1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..." (Clem. Hom.
> XII,6)
>
> 2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather Hegesippus
> (about 160 AD) is stating:
>
> "...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives
> the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes
> as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the
> government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been
> called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the present day;
> for there were many that bore the name James.
>
> 'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor strong
> drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head, he did not
> anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was
> permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen but linen
> garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple,
> and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the
> people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in
> consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
> God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7, Nicene and Post
> Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y., 1890, Vol I,
> p.125)
>
> It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James, the brother of
> Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would apply that Mary
> was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat as a child.
> That being the case one would think it to be clear that the whole
> family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian. In that sense
> the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from his mother's
> womb" is most indicative pointing towards the vegetarianism of Jesus.
>
> 3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which actually were
> widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this disciple of
> Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from
> eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread, with salt and
> drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and
> winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to
> others."
>
> 4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a demon
> dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
> Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts, fruits and
> vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the
> extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."
>
> (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On Eating)
> (Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the vegetarianism of
> John the Baptist.)
>
> 5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts 1:21-26). His food
> as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the same as
> Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)
>
> 6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both flesh and
> faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the Baptists'
> followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet. (See above
> under Matthew)
>
> Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or eat flesh..."
> (Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems altogether
> somewhat less categorical.
>
> Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature by many of
> the Fathers of the early Church:
>
> "...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as having come
> eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I think that He
> who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty 'Blessed,' who
> professed His work to be the completion of His Father's Will, I think
> that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for that 'Meat'
> which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common prayers
> petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." - Quintus
> Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).
>
> This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments of the
> writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
> "...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the heathens
> worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts, through
> participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with devils..."
> (2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)
>
> Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer exhorts in one of
> his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their hands and
> hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
> Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and nuts, and
> vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not within a
> temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables, vegetables,
> roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" - Churchfather Clement of
> Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)
>
> "...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of
> animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of flesh is of
> demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No streams of
> blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of head. Nor are
> horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable fumes from
> the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)
>
> A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished and much
> cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of the
> Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the Vulgate, the
> authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.
>
> The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29 meat-eating
> is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
> face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
> They will be yours for food..."
>
> However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all of a sudden
> permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts
> of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that
> moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are
> given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food
> for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you
> everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in
> it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)
>
> Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who abandoned
> asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up vegetarianism as the
> Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule of life.
>
> St. Jerome says:
> "...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave His second
> blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the
> first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce
> according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning,
> but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses
> to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to divorce your
> wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
> beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the
> deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to
> the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our
> teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10) teaches that
> God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and renew in Christ
> Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the
> Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8; 22:13), "I
> am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."
>
> At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave
> bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we
> reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of
> the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for food, and
> divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision
> was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something
> superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega
> passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no
> longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we circumcised,
> nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21), "It is good
> not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was
> consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book I,18)
> "The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One hardly can
> have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." - St. Basil (AD
> 320 - 79)
>
> Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the early
> Christians as abstaining from meat:
>
> Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached) referred to the
> early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, as a
> ..."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."
>
> Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of Nero, describes
> the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition (under imperial
> suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."
>
> And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians: "...They
> assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane matters but
> put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one to a single
> plate of one sort of innocent food..."
>
> The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and translated from
> an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills, kills his
> brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his
> own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and who
> so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death... Kill
> neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your mouth...
> For life comes from life, and from death comes always death. For
> everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also. And your
> bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits become what
> your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace
>
> And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do with mankind
> but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in the purpose
> of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics is
> reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened universally.
> It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of thought...
> Only a universal ethic which embraces every living creature can put us
> in touch with the universe and the will which is there manifest..."
>
> Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty to animals is
> as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm, they have no
> power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so satanic in
> tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend
> themselves, who are utterly in our power..."
>
> Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of the opinion
> that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.
>
> His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya
> of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are many
> rascals who violate their own religious principles. While it clearly
> says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill,"
> they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of religions
> indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons.
> This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought about
> unlimited calamities..."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> Paul's teachings and interpretations
>
>
> And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it himself:
>
> "...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the cross) allows
> him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in the cross) is
> weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)
>
> The smoking gun is right the It is Paul's concept of faith in the
> salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete which leads
> him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic fanaticism
> of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.
>
> Further proof are at hand. In fact the following statements make no
> sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to convince a large
> section of early Christians, that there was no problem with eating
> meat.
>
> "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
> All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that
> causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink
> wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So
> whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and
> God..." (Rom 14:20-22)
>
> In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is offended
> and the community of Christians is not disturbed.
>
> He goes on:
> "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat
> whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
> But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then
> do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for
> conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For
> why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take
> part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of
> something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you
> do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)
>
> In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in sacrifice,
> Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is offered in
> sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend others.
>
> It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating is allowed.
> There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat offered in
> sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there were others
> who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea of eating
> meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is allowed,
> according to Paul:
>
> "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
> conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
> (1 Cor 10:25-26)
>
> Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been Christians who
> found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to buy meat in
> the market.
>
> And again mo
>
> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then
> for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what
> you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating
> destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman 14:14-15)
>
> Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly addressing
> early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:
>
> "...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain
> foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who
> believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good,
> and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..."
> (1 Timothy 4:3-4)
>
> So we can see that there was obviously a large group of people who did
> not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't let it be a
> matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the market).
> Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in sacrifice,
> as made out by Christian theologians.
>
> The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way how he
> addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly clear that
> their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.
>
> He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem (James, Peter) as
> "those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":
> "...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those
> "super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have
> knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
> (2 Cor 11:5-6)
>
> He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the Apostles in
> Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:
>
> "...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER THAN THE
> JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit from the one
> you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put
> up with it easily enough."
> (2 Cor 11:4)
>
> "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
> than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we
> have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you
> a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally
> condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)
>
> "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground
> from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with
> us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles,
> deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder,
> for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:12-14)
>
>
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org
> www.krishna.dk




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On 14 Feb 2004 06:22:02 -0800, (moshe) wrote:

>Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.

Mark 14
12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?"
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?'

(refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)

Exodus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
your year.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
household.
[...]
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
at twilight.
7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
lambs.
8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
the fire-head, legs and inner parts.

>Jesus helped his disciples catch fish with a net for the pupose of
>eating the fish and selling the fish so that others could eat it.
>
>- moshe

Here's a little something else:

Luke 2
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."

moshe wrote:

<snip>

> Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.

We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.

There are now services which have been written for a vegetarian
Passover supper, which are used by vegetarian and AR-supporting
Jews.

> Jesus helped his disciples catch fish with a net for the pupose of
> eating the fish and selling the fish so that others could eat it.

The vegetarians/ARAs who insist that Jesus or the early Christians
had to be vegetarians (highly unlikely) are making the same mistake
as the Bible-thumping fundies who quote proof-texts which modern
scholars now almost universally believe had nothing to do with
homosexuality, and certainly nothing to do with gayness as we now
understand it -- like the story of Sodom, which deals with lack
of hospitality to guests, not *** sex per se. The question is not
whether Jesus Himself, incarnate, ate meat. He was a man of his
culture. He made no protest against human slavery, or the oppression
of women, or the Roman aggressive imperialism. Why should we expect
him to deal directly with a post-1970's concept of animal rights?
Yet Christians would universally, today, agree that slavery and
racism are anti-Christian. We simply have to wait until it becomes
clear to the larger culture that our treatment of animals, and our
holding them in slavery, are also contrary to the mind of the loving
and just Christ.

What Christian AR supporters need to focus on is the
_spirit_ of Jesus's message and the saints' example ( many were
vegetarian) -- concentrating on the message of love and non-violence,
and the self-giving sacrifice of the higher for the lower we see
modeled in Jesus and his disciples, and our obligation as stewards
to guard and cherish God's creation, which is not ours, but His.
We do not own anything, certainly not animals. We cannot do with
them as we wish. We must do with them what God wishes, and he has
said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice (of animals)."

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> moshe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
>
>
> We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.

It's much stronger than "only" an assumption, and you
know it. It is virtually a certainty, and you know THAT.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:

>> moshe wrote:

>> <snip>

>>> Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.

>> We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.

> It's much stronger than "only" an assumption, and you know it. It is
> virtually a certainty, and you know THAT.

No, it remains an assumption unless we have some concrete historical
evidence to confirm it. Much of history will always rest on
assumptions, but that is still not proof.

None the less, as I said, whether the incarnate Jesus ate lamb at
the Passover is irrelevant for the issue of Christian-based
vegetarianism in the present day, just as is the probability that
Jesus at some point used items created by slave labor, or was served by
slaves at some event. If the servants who filled the water-jars at
the wedding at Cana were slaves -- as is certainly possible -- that
does not mean we should own slaves today. The support for
chattel slavery of humans in the Bible is explicit and overwhelming,
even in the example of Paul returning a run-away slave to his
master. Our current culture is not that of first-century Judea.

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
>>> moshe wrote:
>
>
>>> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
>
>
>>> We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.
>
>
>> It's much stronger than "only" an assumption, and you know it. It is
>> virtually a certainty, and you know THAT.
>
>
> No, it remains an assumption unless we have some concrete historical
> evidence to confirm it.

There is historical evidence of it. There is as much
historical evidence of it as there is that Jesus
existed at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of what I have written here is a commentary on the importance and positive
thing that a vegetarian diet is for all life on this planet. It is merely the
addressing of the self worshipping crap that ego maniacs like you spew in your
attempts to exploit any and all social means for the sole purpose of inflating
your misguided ego!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A saint in Hindu mythology. According to the legend, when the celestial Ganga
flowed to the earth from heaven, the hermitages of Jahnu and other saints were
flooded and washed away by the flood of the river. Enraged at this, Jahnu drank
the entire river waters by using his yogic power. At the request of gods and
saints, he later released the river through his ear and told that Ganga would
hereafter be known as his daughter. Thus, the river Ganga (the Ganges) came to be
known as 'Jahnavi' (daughter of Jahnu).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

From below, the King of ego - Jahnu wrote:

"So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that."

(Grab your ankles Jahnu)
Agree to what, oh Yogi guru master? As I read all that you have wrote below it is
clear that you are not submitting your thoughts but seeking validation of your
beliefs. Please explain to all the would be followers of your great ego how 6
billion humans surviving on an all plant diet avoid "not killing others (human and
animal alike,...)"

As a member of the privileged class of humans, you have all the free time in the
world to troll for followers of your great ego while billions are without enough
food. They are forced to burn rain forests to grow corn and beans. Animals of all
kinds are being, and have been, driven to extinction to grow the plants that 6
billion (and growing) humans need to survive.

Your attempts to call early christians, vegetarians amounts to what significance
in the real world (of which you are not)? It means squat and ignores the real
problem on this planet. A problem of ignorance being spread by the humungo ego's
of religous/newage idiots that pooh-pooh science and the clear picture it reveals
of our earth on it's death bed. Your adherence to creationism and denial of
evolution is an escape from the true significance of species extinction!

These discussion groups are stuffed with self worshipping self anointed
"spiritualists" that are nothing more than privileged ego maniacal idiots that
would not know the meaning of life it was pressed on their brian with a red hot
poker.

The real hero's of this world are people like Jane Goodal that devoted decades of
their life living in solitude (makes 40 days and 40 nights a cake walk) out in a
field of study. Jane Goodal has given to man more than any socalled prophet/profit
before her. She has not sought to be a messenger or to control a following like
assholes like you. Her life work has demonstrated that man need only look to his
primate brothers to see and understand a simple model of himself.

Acknowledge the animal within,
or fail to control the animal within!

My attacks on you and yours on myself are understood by me for what they are, men
competing for an alpha position. For you though, you live in a dream world like
millions of others that deny their true biology. You seek mastery of the imagined
out failure to understand the real. I embrace the real and therefore have clear
advantage over you.

Each time you seek/utilize modern medicine/science you live a lie. Each time I use
science to embrace the real world I live in truth. You will never know life or the
true meaning of spirituality simply because you deny your true biology.

You can now let go of your ankles!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jahnu wrote:

> Jesus & vegetarianism
>
> So when we talk about changing one's life, giving one's time, life,
> energy, mind, resources to God and worship him with all one's heart
> mind soul, etc., well we all agree to that.
>
> To be non violent, not to kill others (humans and animals alike, not
> even for food (it is quite clear that the Early Christians were
> vegetarians, see below), we all agree on that. We are citizens of the
> spiritual world and we should not unnecessarily use our valuable time
> in mundane pursuits. Unless we give up material life and turn with
> great determination towards spiritual life our life will be a loss and
> end up in disappointment.
>
> On the other side when we start taking about the resurrection of the
> flesh and that Jesus died for our sins, well these are theological
> concepts that were superimposed on the teachings of Jesus from Paul on
> and really miss the point of his actual teachings to mankind.
>
> Quote from the book "Food for peace":
>
> Major stumbling blocks for many Christians are the belief that Christ
> ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But
> close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast
> majority of the words translated as "meat" are trophe, brome, and
> other words that simply mean "food" or "eating" in the broadest sense.
> For example, in the Gospel (Luke 8:55) we read that Jesus raised a
> woman from the dead and "commanded to give her meat." The original
> Greek word translated as "meat" is phago, which means only "to eat".
> So, what Christ actually said was, "Let her eat."
>
> The original Greek word for meat is kreas ("flesh"), and it is never
> used in connection with Christ. In Luke 24:41-43 the disciples offered
> him fish and a honeycomb and he took it (singular, we can guess which
> one). Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to
> Jesus eating meat.
>
> This is in line with Isaiah's famous prophecy: "Behold, a virgin shall
> conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall
> eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil from the good."
> (Isaiah 7:14-15) (this itself says that meat eating destroys all good
> discretion in man. It is quite typical, that the second part of the
> sentence is omitted in Matthew 1:23).
>
> Jesus rebuked strongly the pharisees with the words: "...and if you
> had known what it means: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ...you
> would not condemn the innocent," (Matthew 12:6) which clearly
> disapproves of the killing of animals, as this is a verse taken from
> Hosea 6:6: "I desire mercy instead of sacrifice, the knowledge of God
> more than burnt offerings..." (note: again the the 2nd part of the
> sentence is omitted in Matthew 12:6).
>
> He strongly opposed the custom of temple animal sacrifices, violently
> driving those who were selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the
> money-changers out of the temple (John 2:13-15).
>
> His words: "...you shall not make my father's house a house of trade
> (which in earlier translations always was translated as "murders'
> den").
>
> We all know that according to Matthew 3:4 John the Baptist was
> refusing to eat meat. ("...and his food was wild locust (bean) and
> wild honey." (orig. Greek: enkris, oil cake and akris: locust/honey)
>
> But we never hear of the sheer overwhelming evidence which points to
> Jesus being a vegetarian: No less than seven of Jesus' twelve
> disciples refused meat food (the rest we do not know). This naturally
> reflects the teachings of Jesus, as: "...a servant is not greater than
> his master..." (John 14:16).
>
> The seven a
>
> 1. Peter, "...whose food was bread, olives and herbs..." (Clem. Hom.
> XII,6)
>
> 2. James: Church Father Eusebius, quoting the Churchfather Hegesippus
> (about 160 AD) is stating:
>
> "...But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives
> the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes
> as follow: '...James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the
> government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been
> called the Just by all from the time of our savior to the present day;
> for there were many that bore the name James.
>
> 'He was holy from his mother's womb; he drank no wine, nor strong
> drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head, he did not
> anoint himself with oil and he did not use the bath. He alone was
> permitted to enter the holy place; for he wore no woolen but linen
> garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple,
> and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the
> people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel in
> consequence of constantly bending them on his worship of
> God...'" (Eusebius, Church History II, Ch. XXIII,5-7, Nicene and Post
> Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Oxford, N.Y., 1890, Vol I,
> p.125)
>
> It is interesting that Hegesippus is saying that James, the brother of
> Jesus, was holy from his mother's womb on which would apply that Mary
> was not eating meat either and that she never fed him meat as a child.
> That being the case one would think it to be clear that the whole
> family of Jesus and naturally he himself was vegetarian. In that sense
> the statement of Churchfather Eusebius "he was holy from his mother's
> womb" is most indicative pointing towards the vegetarianism of Jesus.
>
> 3. Thomas: The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (Ch. 20), which actually were
> widely in use among early Christian sects, depict this disciple of
> Jesus as ascetic: "He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from
> eating of flesh and drinking wine, he eats only bread, with salt and
> drink and water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and
> winter, and accepts nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to
> others."
>
> 4. Matthew: "It is far better to be happy than to have a demon
> dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
> Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds and nuts, fruits and
> vegetables without of flesh. And John, who carried temperance to the
> extreme, ate locusts and wild honey..."
>
> (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, II.I,16: On Eating)
> (Note here the strong hint of Clement towards the vegetarianism of
> John the Baptist.)
>
> 5. Matthias (who filled the place of Judas - Acts 1:21-26). His food
> as told by Church Father Clement of Alexandria was the same as
> Matthews. (Clement/Stromata III,4,26)
>
> 6. Andrew and 7. Jude: Andrew (Peter's brother in both flesh and
> faith) and Jude of Bethsaida, originally two of John the Baptists'
> followers, must have followed the Baptist's austere diet. (See above
> under Matthew)
>
> Paul also says: "...It is good neither to drink wine or eat flesh..."
> (Roman 14:20-21) though his commitment altogether seems altogether
> somewhat less categorical.
>
> Beyond that there are strong arguments of a similar nature by many of
> the Fathers of the early Church:
>
> "...How unworthy do you press the example of Christ as having come
> eating and drinking into the service of your lusts: I think that He
> who pronounced not the full, but the hungry and thirsty 'Blessed,' who
> professed His work to be the completion of His Father's Will, I think
> that he was wont to abstain, instructing them to labor for that 'Meat'
> which lasts to eternal life, and enjoying in their common prayers
> petition, not for flesh food but for bread only..." - Quintus
> Septimius Tertullianus (AD 155).
>
> This knowledge of Tertullianus was supported by fragments of the
> writings by the Apostolic Father Papias (AD 60 - 125).
> "...The unnatural eating of flesh is as polluting as the heathens
> worship of devils with its sacrifices and impure feasts, through
> participation in which a man becomes a fellow eater with devils..."
> (2nd century scripture Clemente Homilies - Hom. XII)
>
> Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer exhorts in one of
> his hymns his fellow Christians "...not to pollute their hands and
> hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep..."
> Accordingly the Apostle Matthew, "partook of seeds, and nuts, and
> vegetables, without the use of flesh... is there not within a
> temperate simplicity, a wholesome variety of eatables, vegetables,
> roots, olives, herbs, milk, cheese, fruits?" - Churchfather Clement of
> Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens, AD 150 - 220)
>
> "...We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of
> animals to subdue our bodies. The unnatural eating of flesh is of
> demonic origin." And about the early Christians: "...No streams of
> blood are among them. No dainty cookery, no heaviness of head. Nor are
> horrible smells of flesh meats among them or disagreeable fumes from
> the kitchen.." - St. Chrysostomos (AD 347-404)
>
> A most important purport to a controversy, much cherished and much
> cited by meat-eating Christians we find in the writings of the
> Churchfather Jerome (AD 340 - 420), who gave us the Vulgate, the
> authorized Latin version of the Bible still in use today.
>
> The controversy is based on the fact that in Genesis 1:29 meat-eating
> is clearly forbidden, "...I give you every seed-bearing plant on the
> face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.
> They will be yours for food..."
>
> However after the flood it appears that meat-eating is all of a sudden
> permitted: "...The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts
> of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that
> moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are
> given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food
> for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you
> everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in
> it..." (Genesis 9:2-4)
>
> Writing in confutation of Jovinian, a monk of Milan, who abandoned
> asceticism, St. Jerome (died A.D. 440) holds up vegetarianism as the
> Christian ideal and the restoration of the primeval rule of life.
>
> St. Jerome says:
> "...He (Jovinian) raises the objection that when God gave His second
> blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, which had not in the
> first benediction been allowed. He should know that just as divorce
> according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning,
> but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses
> to the human race, (Matthew 9:8: "Moses permitted you to divorce your
> wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the
> beginning.") ...so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the
> deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to
> the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our
> teeth. The Apostle writing to the Ephesians (Eph. 1:10) teaches that
> God had purposed in the fullness of time to sum up and renew in Christ
> Jesus all things which are in heaven and in earth. Whence also the
> Saviour himself in the Revelation of John says (Rev. 1:8; 22:13), "I
> am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending."
>
> At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave
> bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we
> reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of
> the law which no one could fulfill, flesh was given for food, and
> divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision
> was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something
> superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega
> passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no
> longer allowed divorce (see Matthew 19:3-9), nor are we circumcised,
> nor so we eat flesh, for the Apostle says (Rom. 14:21), "It is good
> not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine." For wine as well as flesh was
> consecrated after the deluge." (Against Jovinianus, Book I,18)
> "The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit... One hardly can
> have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..." - St. Basil (AD
> 320 - 79)
>
> Besides that contemporary heathen observers describe the early
> Christians as abstaining from meat:
>
> Pliny, Governor of Bithynia (where Peter preached) referred to the
> early Christians in a letter to Trajan, the Roman Emperor, as a
> ..."contagious superstition abstaining from flesh food..."
>
> Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD), stoic philosopher and tutor of Nero, describes
> the Christians as "...a foreign cultus or superstition (under imperial
> suspicion) who abstain from flesh food..."
>
> And Josephus Flavius says about the early Christians: "...They
> assemble before sunrising and speak not a word of profane matters but
> put up certain prayers... and sit down together each one to a single
> plate of one sort of innocent food..."
>
> The scholar E.M. Szekely claims to have recovered and translated from
> an old Aramaic scripture, "...Therefore, he who kills, kills his
> brother... And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his
> own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and who
> so eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death... Kill
> neither men, nor beasts, nor the food which goes into your mouth...
> For life comes from life, and from death comes always death. For
> everything which kills your foods, kills your bodies also. And your
> bodies become what your foods are, even as your spirits become what
> your thoughts are..." - E.M. Szekely, Gospel of Peace
>
> And Albert Schweitzer says: "...Ethics has not only to do with mankind
> but with the animal creation as well. This is witnessed in the purpose
> of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus we shall arrive that ethics is
> reverence for all life. This is the ethic of love widened universally.
> It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as a necessity of thought...
> Only a universal ethic which embraces every living creature can put us
> in touch with the universe and the will which is there manifest..."
>
> Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801 - 90) says: "...Cruelty to animals is
> as if man did not love God... They have done us no harm, they have no
> power of resistance... there is something dreadful, so satanic in
> tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend
> themselves, who are utterly in our power..."
>
> Tolstoy and Dukhobor (Orthodox Russian Christian) were of the opinion
> that meat-eating is against the tenets of Christianity.
>
> His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya
> of ISKCON (Hare Krishna Movement) concludes: "...There are many
> rascals who violate their own religious principles. While it clearly
> says according to Judeo-Christian scriptures, "Thou shalt not kill,"
> they are giving all kinds of excuses. Even the heads of religions
> indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons.
> This mockery and hypocrisy in human society has brought about
> unlimited calamities..."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Paul's teachings and interpretations
>
> And it's absolutely amazing that Paul actually tells it himself:
>
> "...One man's faith (in the idea of salvation from the cross) allows
> him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith (in the cross) is
> weak, eats only vegetables..." (Roman 14:2)
>
> The smoking gun is right the It is Paul's concept of faith in the
> salvific nature of the cross, declaring the Torah obsolete which leads
> him to view the vegetarianism of the apostles as dietetic fanaticism
> of Nazarene Jewish origin and hence dispensable.
>
> Further proof are at hand. In fact the following statements make no
> sense whatsoever, unless we agree that Paul needed to convince a large
> section of early Christians, that there was no problem with eating
> meat.
>
> "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.
> All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that
> causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink
> wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. So
> whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and
> God..." (Rom 14:20-22)
>
> In other words it is O.K. to eat meat as long as nobody is offended
> and the community of Christians is not disturbed.
>
> He goes on:
> "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat
> whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
> But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then
> do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for
> conscience' sake-- the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For
> why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take
> part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of
> something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you
> do, do it all for the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:27-31)
>
> In other words as far as eating meat, even when offered in sacrifice,
> Paul had no scruples unless it is declared, that meat is offered in
> sacrifice. In this case do not eat it, to avoid to offend others.
>
> It is very clear: It needed to be saying that meat eating is allowed.
> There were Christians who are vegetarians. Beware of meat offered in
> sacrifice. Because besides the vegetarian Christians there were others
> who were less strict but who would not approve of the idea of eating
> meat offered in sacrifice. Meat eating in general is allowed,
> according to Paul:
>
> "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
> conscience, for, 'The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.'"
> (1 Cor 10:25-26)
>
> Again, this makes no sense unless there must have been Christians who
> found it difficult to reconcile with their conscience to buy meat in
> the market.
>
> And again mo
>
> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then
> for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what
> you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating
> destroy your brother for whom Christ died." (Roman 14:14-15)
>
> Later this point of view is reflected in Timothy, possibly addressing
> early Christian sects like the later banned Enkratites:
>
> "...They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain
> foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who
> believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good,
> and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving..."
> (1 Timothy 4:3-4)
>
> So we can see that there was obviously a large group of people who did
> not agree with meat eating in general (hence he says don't let it be a
> matter of conscience to you when buying meat in the market).
> Definitely the issue was not about eating food offered in sacrifice,
> as made out by Christian theologians.
>
> The tensions between Paul are further reflected in the way how he
> addresses the disciples of Jesus. He makes it perfectly clear that
> their opinions are not what Paul is overly concerned with.
>
> He sarcastically describes the Apostles in Jerusalem (James, Peter) as
> "those Super Apostles", "those reputed to be the Pillars":
> "...But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those
> "super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have
> knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
> (2 Cor 11:5-6)
>
> He clearly is preaching a different Jesus then the Apostles in
> Jerusalem. Hence he warns his followers:
>
> "...For if someone comes to you and preaches A JESUS OTHER THAN THE
> JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a different spirit from the one
> you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put
> up with it easily enough."
> (2 Cor 11:4)
>
> "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
> than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we
> have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you
> a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally
> condemned!" (Gal 1:8-9)
>
> "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground
> from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with
> us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles,
> deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder,
> for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:12-14)
>
> www.krishna.com
> www.iskcon.org
> www.krishna.dk

In article >,
Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
> > >
> > > moshe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
> > >
> > > We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.
> >
> > It's much stronger than "only" an assumption, and you know it. It is
> > virtually a certainty, and you know THAT.
>
> No, it remains an assumption unless we have some concrete historical
> evidence to confirm it. Much of history will always rest on
> assumptions, but that is still not proof.

No, whether or not Jesus ate the Pasover Lamb, is only an assumption if
we disbelieve the Biblical account of His sinless perfection. For those
of us who do believe in the Biblical account of His sinless perfection,
then the fact that He fulfilled the requirement of eating the Passover
lamb is not an assumption, it is a given certainty.

Once you part company with the doctrine of His sinless perfection, then
a whole host of certainties will naturally become mere assumptions.
This is one of them.

Rat wrote:
> You have some kind of beef with Henry VIII, evidently -- or you just
> have a beef with me and want to be contrary.

No, I'm striving for historical and doctrinal accuracy. Too bad you
don't share my standards.

> I'm not saying Henry
> was a nice guy; in many ways, he wasn't.

Which ways was he a nice guy?

> Nor am I saying his personal
> life was above reproach -- it wasn't.

Got that right.

> What I AM saying -- which was
> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
> time.

What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called "Reformers,"
at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's doctrines.
However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not Protestant -- this
is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman Catholics. Protestant is a
rather general term for one who protests, and that is certainly what
Henry did. He didn't accept the counsel originally offered him in the
matter and "shopped" for a bishop until he found one who'd engage in the
sophistry he did to break with Rome.

> He was, doctrinally, a staunch Catholic (Romanist ). He opposed
> every Protestant change suggested by anyone around him, except the
> authority of the Pope over the Church in England. In that, he went
> back to a Byzantine/Roman concept -- the authority of the Emperor
> within his empire -- not forward to the radical Protestant concept of
> the time.

The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and Luther
had historical precedents. If Calvin, Hus, and Luther were heretics,
then so were Augustine, Eusebius, and literally every church father
before the ninth century. I can provide a list of fathers and what they
taught on every point of doctrine stemming from the "solas" of the
Reformation.

> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
> including Anne Bolyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.

Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter compared
to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.

> Cranmer and
> Catherine Parr both came close to being executed as Protestants,
> although Cromwell eventually got axed for entirely different reasons
> (hooking Henry up with Anne of Cleaves).

Sounds no different from what papal critics faced. Hmmm.

> Several others got axed
> (like Thomas Moore) for refusing to accept Henry's break with the Pope.

More's (one o) downfall began when he refused to endorse Henry's
divorce. He was consistent on the travesty of that divorce and paid for
his consistency with his head by refusing to take the oath of supremacy
and the Act of Succession. The former was an oath declaring Henry head
of the church in England. The latter ostensibly *******ized Mary.

<snip: I disagree vehemently with many of your points>
>> You also failed to explain why the British monarch swears to defend
>> the "Protestant and reformed" faith in his or her coronation oath.
>> That oath, if you looked at the link, goes back to 1689. It is hardly
>> a novelty.
>
> Yes, I know. Geez, I was just bringing in a bit of Episcopalian
> stuff, the conflict between the Low, Broad, and High church, which
> is pretty much a dead issue now, but was quite lively when I was
> growing up. Yeah, yeah, there are Protestant aspect to the
> Episcopal church,

Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is quite
general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is in terms
of doctrine. Your church has more doctrinal agreement with Presbyterians
and even Methodists (despite their being a spin-off of Anglicanism) than
with Rome, which is why your church has had fellowship with the more
doctrinally loose factions of those traditions. You're closer to full
fellowship with PCUSA and ELCA than with Rome, even before all your
radical moves to the left (with which even those liberal bodies disagree
with you).

> but Anglo-Catholics like to play those down, and
> have always stressed that we are Catholic and catholic, not Protestant.

You are the first Episcopalian I have *ever* encountered who has taken
such exception. As I've noted, my church also calls itself catholic
(small c), as do other Reformed churches. That in no way is a high/low
church distinction, it's an adjective rightly defining the church's
doctrines stemming from the historical creeds (Apostles', Nicene,
Athanasian) and confessions.

I could make a very strong case that your church ceased being catholic
many years ago as you started the steep decline into radicalism.

> We're not a Protestant denomination in the same way the Presbyterians
> or Baptists, or low-church Lutherans are, however. Here we follow
> another Via Media. We have the Apostolic Succession for our clergy
> (although it came through Scotland, not England). We are more like
> the Orthodox in being Catholic but non-Roman than were are like the
> more radical Protestant denominations.

Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination, perhaps the most
radical now. You have a lot more in common in terms of doctrine and
practice with the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, and
even the Unitarians (well, more practice than doctrine with Unitarians,
but some of your Bishops, like Spong, are closer to Unitarian than
Christian).

> We most certainly are not
> Protestant in the same way the other non-apostolic churches are.

Yes, you are. You're like Presbyterians in doctrine and Rome in
structure. Your only significant difference among all the Protestant
bodies is your hierarchy, which is shared among liberal Methodists and
liberal Lutherans; I suspect the conservative Methodist and Lutheran
factions are bottom-up rather than top-down organizations, so there's
less chance of heretics and apostates rising in church hierarchy. Why
does your church reward those who deny clear, central Christian
teachings with the title of bishop anyway?

<snip rest of sophistry>

psalmsmith wrote:
>>>>>Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
>>>>
>>>>We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.
>>>
>>>It's much stronger than "only" an assumption, and you know it. It is
>>>virtually a certainty, and you know THAT.
>>
>>No, it remains an assumption unless we have some concrete historical
>>evidence to confirm it. Much of history will always rest on
>>assumptions, but that is still not proof.
>
>
> No, whether or not Jesus ate the Pasover Lamb, is only an assumption if
> we disbelieve the Biblical account of His sinless perfection. For those
> of us who do believe in the Biblical account of His sinless perfection,
> then the fact that He fulfilled the requirement of eating the Passover
> lamb is not an assumption, it is a given certainty.

Correct. As usual, the OP only sees what she wants in the Bible. If it's
about homosexuality, she says it's about bad manners and hospitality. If
it's about fishing, as Jesus and his disciples did, it was about
something else.

> Once you part company with the doctrine of His sinless perfection, then
> a whole host of certainties will naturally become mere assumptions.
> This is one of them.

The person (Karen, aka "Rat") to whom you replied is an apostate
Episcopalian. If she even has a Bible, she reads it with rose-colored
glasses. Nothing ever means what it says, just what she and her radicals
want it to mean.

usual suspect > wrote:

> psalmsmith wrote:

> >
> >
> > No, whether or not Jesus ate the Pasover Lamb, is only an assumption if
> > we disbelieve the Biblical account of His sinless perfection. For those
> > of us who do believe in the Biblical account of His sinless perfection,
> > then the fact that He fulfilled the requirement of eating the Passover
> > lamb is not an assumption, it is a given certainty.
>
> Correct. As usual, the OP only sees what she wants in the Bible. If it's
> about homosexuality, she says it's about bad manners and hospitality. If
> it's about fishing, as Jesus and his disciples did, it was about
> something else.

Oh I know the sort...people who think a literal translation is a bad
idea; because where it says "and God made man in His own image" they
choose for it to say "and man made god in his own image."

It's funny how much impact a little word-order can make. ;-)

> > Once you part company with the doctrine of His sinless perfection, then
> > a whole host of certainties will naturally become mere assumptions.
> > This is one of them.
>
> The person (Karen, aka "Rat") to whom you replied is an apostate
> Episcopalian. If she even has a Bible, she reads it with rose-colored
> glasses. Nothing ever means what it says, just what she and her radicals
> want it to mean.

I appreciate the heads-up. I tend to think of scripture as more like
granite and less like mercury. There are far too many people in the
world who will tape this "hello, I'm a Christian" sticky-label to the
left front of their shirt when it serves their interests, but still live
like the devil every chance they get.

The sriptures I read say "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Each person is responsible for their own choices; and for the
consequences they will face, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
The real tragedy of it all is those who will be enticed by the
broadcasting of their licentious fantasies, and so succumb to sin.

I will commit to prayer for her, and for all those to whom her voice has
reached.

Shalom!
Glen

psalmsmith wrote:
> In article >,
> Rat & Swan > wrote:
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>>
>>>>moshe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
>>>>
>>>>We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.
>>>
>>>It's much stronger than "only" an assumption, and you know it. It is
>>>virtually a certainty, and you know THAT.
>>
>>No, it remains an assumption unless we have some concrete historical
>>evidence to confirm it. Much of history will always rest on
>>assumptions, but that is still not proof.
>
>
> No, whether or not Jesus ate the Pasover Lamb, is only an assumption if
> we disbelieve the Biblical account of His sinless perfection.

I think that the NT acount of his sinful imperfection more reasnable.

psalmsmith wrote:
>>>No, whether or not Jesus ate the Pasover Lamb, is only an assumption if
>>>we disbelieve the Biblical account of His sinless perfection. For those
>>>of us who do believe in the Biblical account of His sinless perfection,
>>>then the fact that He fulfilled the requirement of eating the Passover
>>>lamb is not an assumption, it is a given certainty.
>>
>>Correct. As usual, the OP only sees what she wants in the Bible. If it's
>>about homosexuality, she says it's about bad manners and hospitality. If
>>it's about fishing, as Jesus and his disciples did, it was about
>>something else.
>
> Oh I know the sort...people who think a literal translation is a bad
> idea; because where it says "and God made man in His own image" they
> choose for it to say "and man made god in his own image."
>
> It's funny how much impact a little word-order can make. ;-)

Karen's incessant butchering of Scripture isn't funny, but I know what
you mean by that.

>>>Once you part company with the doctrine of His sinless perfection, then
>>>a whole host of certainties will naturally become mere assumptions.
>>>This is one of them.
>>
>>The person (Karen, aka "Rat") to whom you replied is an apostate
>>Episcopalian. If she even has a Bible, she reads it with rose-colored
>>glasses. Nothing ever means what it says, just what she and her radicals
>>want it to mean.
>
> I appreciate the heads-up. I tend to think of scripture as more like
> granite and less like mercury. There are far too many people in the
> world who will tape this "hello, I'm a Christian" sticky-label to the
> left front of their shirt when it serves their interests, but still live
> like the devil every chance they get.
>
> The sriptures I read say "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
> evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
> bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Yes, I've quoted that to Karen many times now. She usually snips it.

> Each person is responsible for their own choices; and for the
> consequences they will face, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
> The real tragedy of it all is those who will be enticed by the
> broadcasting of their licentious fantasies, and so succumb to sin.

She approves of pedophilia and bestiality:
...I am willing to believe zoophile activity may be harmless,
in and of itself, if done responsibly.
-- degeneRat, Date: 1998/11/04
http://snipurl.com/4chn

To see zoo relationships as real, genuine relationships must
lead us into seeing the non-human partner as having a real
personhood of some kind, and I do think that is a good thing.
Reading the writing of some sensitive zoos does make it clear
that the human partner does sometimes see his non-human partner
as a complete and real individual with the same sort of
personhood as a human partner. The non-human is not just a
victim or a fetish-object.
-- degeneRat, Date: 2001-08-19 23:05:41 PST
http://snipurl.com/4cho

> I will commit to prayer for her, and for all those to whom her voice has
> reached.

I know prayer avails much, but I'm convinced that her depravity is
incorrigible. She even said she'd introduce her own son (whom she
abandoned while he was quite young) to pedophiles. She's seriously warped.

> Shalom!

Back at ya.

finishing incomplete thought...

usual suspect wrote:
<...>
>>> He said we could eat them.
>>
>> That is, of course, questionable, depending on how one interprets
>> the texts.
>
> Of course: for those who accept the clear meaning of what's written, it
> means we can eat them; for those who reject the clear meaning and engage
> in esoteric sophistry to

....obfuscate the real issue, then it's a novel, esoteric, and peculiar
teaching.

usual suspect wrote:
> psalmsmith wrote:

<snip>

>> The sriptures I read say "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
>> evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
>> bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

> Yes, I've quoted that to Karen many times now. She usually snips it.

Because it is a matter of opinion whom it applies to. I could quote
the same verse as applying to you, but I won't, because I believe in
charity toward those who disagree with me. I assume you are honest
in your beliefs, although I do consider them both misguided and
potentially dangerous.

The same goes for Mel Gibson. I was watching his interview last night,
and I'm convinced he's honest in his beliefs, and he has a legitimate
right to make a literalist version of the Passion. His critics are
also right that his version ignores much of modern scholarship and
has serious potential to encourage anti-Semitism. I do find it
disturbing that Jews were evidently refused access to early showings
of the film, and had to sneak in to see it. Swan and I will go see the
movie, certainly, and it will undoubtedly be a hot topic of
conversation for a while, like the earlier "Last Temptation of Christ"
or "Jesus Christ, Superstar". I like "Jesus Christ, Superstar" in its
own way; it asks interesting questions and is stylish, if a bit dated
now. A graphic portrayal of the Crucifixion is a good corrective to
some of the more sanitized versions. I do hope people who see Gibson's
version will _also_ read some of the criticisms of it and perhaps see
some other versions to get a more balanced view.

<snip>

Rat

Rat wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> The sriptures I read say "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
>>> evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
>>> bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
>
>> Yes, I've quoted that to Karen many times now. She usually snips it.
>
> Because it is a matter of opinion whom it applies to.

No, there is no doubt to whom it applies. It applies to you in every
instance.

> I could quote
> the same verse as applying to you, but I won't,

You *can't*. I don't diminish the Law one bit, nor do I diminish the
power of the Gospel. I hold both up. You diminish one at the expene of both.

> because I believe in
> charity toward those who disagree with me.

Yes, I remember how you don't want the church door to hit the Anglican
traditionalists on their butts as they leave the apostacy you've supported.

> I assume you are honest
> in your beliefs, although I do consider them both misguided and
> potentially dangerous.

I realize you have an axe to grind with historic Christianity. That is
why you've joined the assault on those who uphold the Bible in your
church and why you support homosexual "marriage" and ordaining
homosexual bishops.

> The same goes for Mel Gibson. I was watching his interview last night,
> and I'm convinced he's honest in his beliefs, and he has a legitimate
> right to make a literalist version of the Passion.

Yes, he sure does.

> His critics are
> also right that his version ignores much of modern scholarship

Yes, as do most Christians. Wonder why other Anglican bodies around the
world are disfellowshipping your apostate sect?

> and
> has serious potential to encourage anti-Semitism.

Ipse dixit. I've read some of the reviews and concerns expressed about
this and find the concerns unfounded.

> I do find it
> disturbing that Jews were evidently refused access to early showings
> of the film,

Bullshit. Many ADL leaders were brought in to review it throughout
production. Their feedback was used throughout production and
post-production, and Gibson even added disclaimers and removed scenes --
some scenes which those who screened it earlier wish had stayed in the
final cut.

> and had to sneak in to see it. Swan and I will go see the
> movie, certainly, and it will undoubtedly be a hot topic of
> conversation for a while, like the earlier "Last Temptation of Christ"
> or "Jesus Christ, Superstar".

Neither of which is even comparable to what Gibson sought to portray in
the Passion. The former was pure fiction in which Christ was presented
as imperfect, the latter was a ghastly, overdone musical.

> I like "Jesus Christ, Superstar" in its
> own way; it asks interesting questions and is stylish, if a bit dated
> now.

What interesting questions?

> A graphic portrayal of the Crucifixion is a good corrective to
> some of the more sanitized versions.

I agree, but I don't see it as merely "corrective."

> I do hope people who see Gibson's
> version will _also_ read some of the criticisms of it and perhaps see
> some other versions to get a more balanced view.

I think Gibson's is more balanced than most of the critics' views --
especially all the baseless histrionics about anti-semitism. Gibson
believes the Bible and wanted to make a film that captured the suffering
of Christ. Others have already made films which ignore, take license
with, or grossly distort what the Gospels say. Why should he have
followed their lead? That kind of redundancy may win the praise of those
of you who reject the clear teachings of Scripture, but it's unfaithful
to what he believes. He wants to serve God, not his critics.

Swan wrote:
> Swan, here, to offer some context.

You failed.

>>>> Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
>>>
>>> We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.
>>
>> It's among the safest assumptions one can make, like the sun will rise
>> in the East tomorrow morning.
>>
>>> There are now services which have been written for a vegetarian
>>> Passover supper, which are used by vegetarian and AR-supporting
>>> Jews.
>>
>> Pretty recent developments. A Jew of that era -- with very, very few
>> exceptions -- ate the Passover lamb as commanded.
>
> Of course they did. But they didn't eat the lamb we eat today.

Yes, they did. Your argument is as specious as the Baptist
tee-totallers' about the alcohol content in wine of that era. Remember
the parable of the wineskins: why would they burst if the grape juice
didn't ferment? The foods eaten in that era are much the same as today.

> The lamb
> (and the ox, the cattle, etc) was not penned in tiny cages,

Most sheep today are grazed. So are cattle, bison, etc.

> fed on scraps of its dead kindred,

Perhaps you were unaware that such practices have been banned in the US
and most countries.

> injected with hormones and antibiotics

Not all meat is injected with hormones or antibiotics. You know this,
don't you?

> and deprived of its mother's care.

Funny you would choose that argument after Karen abandoned her son.

<snip rest of hyperbole>

usual suspect wrote:

> Rat wrote:
>
>> You have some kind of beef with Henry VIII, evidently -- or you just
>> have a beef with me and want to be contrary.

> No, I'm striving for historical and doctrinal accuracy. Too bad you
> don't share my standards.

I'm glad I don't share your standards. They are pathetic.

>> I'm not saying Henry
>> was a nice guy; in many ways, he wasn't.

> Which ways was he a nice guy?

Henry was the darling of Europe in his early years. He was handsome
and athletic, charismatic and well-liked by most of his court and the
English people, creative -- writing music and poetry -- devout and
well-versed in the New Learning. He really was a Renaissance Man and
had a tremendous amount of talent and learning. When he first
courted Catherine, he saw himself (and she saw him) as a knight in
shining armor rescuing the princess in distress. He was also generous,
unlike his miserly father, Henry VII. The Henry of the Field of the
Cloth of Gold was a remarkable prince, and highly admired by his
contemporaries.

>> Nor am I saying his personal
>> life was above reproach -- it wasn't.

> Got that right.

>> What I AM saying -- which was
>> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
>> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
>> time.

> What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called "Reformers,"
> at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's doctrines.
> However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not Protestant -- this
> is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman Catholics.

Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either. I doubt you
would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.

> Protestant is a
> rather general term for one who protests, and that is certainly what
> Henry did. He didn't accept the counsel originally offered him in the
> matter and "shopped" for a bishop until he found one who'd engage in the
> sophistry he did to break with Rome.

>> He was, doctrinally, a staunch Catholic (Romanist ). He opposed
>> every Protestant change suggested by anyone around him, except the
>> authority of the Pope over the Church in England. In that, he went
>> back to a Byzantine/Roman concept -- the authority of the Emperor
>> within his empire -- not forward to the radical Protestant concept of
>> the time.

> The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and Luther
> had historical precedents.

It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways. Everyone at the
time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.

If Calvin, Hus, and Luther were heretics,
> then so were Augustine, Eusebius, and literally every church father
> before the ninth century. I can provide a list of fathers and what they
> taught on every point of doctrine stemming from the "solas" of the
> Reformation.

Of course -- every radical in church history has looked to earlier
eras for confirmation of his radical ideas. Many of the radical
changes in the Episcopal church, such as changes in the language
of the liturgy, the status of women, and even issues such as
homemade bread instead of wafers and moving the altar away from the
east wall, are based on early church sources. The Reformation was a
radical break with the Roman church of the High Middle Ages; the
Oxford Movement, in turn, was a radical break with the radical break
of the Reformation. Each radical movement looks to an earlier model
in the church, because novelty is regarded with deep suspicion by
most churchpeople.

>> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
>> including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
>> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
>> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
>> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.

> Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter compared
> to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.

Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant? If
he sought ONLY an annulment (I agree -- an annulment and a return to
Cromwell's concept of the Constantinian church/state relationship),
he was not, doctrinally, a Protestant. That is true.

>> Cranmer and
>> Catherine Parr both came close to being executed as Protestants,
>> although Cromwell eventually got axed for entirely different reasons
>> (hooking Henry up with Anne of Cleaves).

> Sounds no different from what papal critics faced. Hmmm.

>> Several others got axed
>> (like Thomas Moore) for refusing to accept Henry's break with the Pope.

> More's (one o) downfall began when he refused to endorse Henry's
> divorce.

Annulment. Yes.

> He was consistent on the travesty of that divorce and paid for
> his consistency with his head by refusing to take the oath of supremacy
> and the Act of Succession. The former was an oath declaring Henry head
> of the church in England. The latter ostensibly *******ized Mary.

Yes.

> <snip: I disagree vehemently with many of your points>

I suspected your would. Why?

>>> You also failed to explain why the British monarch swears to defend
>>> the "Protestant and reformed" faith in his or her coronation oath.
>>> That oath, if you looked at the link, goes back to 1689. It is hardly
>>> a novelty.

You have to see these things in historical context. The late 17th and
18th century English church came out of passionate and bloody fighting
over Rome's claims and England's relationship with the
Counterreformation powers. Roman Catholics were considered traitors
and not even allowed to vote during those centuries. The Protestant
aspects of the Church of England's identity were stressed. The
American church also became independent at the time of the American
Revolution, and, again, stressed its non-Roman origins (it was known
as the Protestant Episcopal church in the 1928 prayer book). During
the mid-to-late 19th century, the Oxford Movement came as a reaction,
and stressed the continuity of the Anglican and Episcopal church with
the historic catholic church, with a particular fondness for a
romanticized version of the church of the High Middle Ages. Some High
Church people converted back to Romanism, like Newman. Others created
doctrinal and liturgical revivals within the Anglican church -- the
Anglo-Catholic revival. Check out the webpage of an Anglo-Catholic
parish like my old parish, All Saints in the Haight in San Francisco,
to see how this exists even today.

>> Yes, I know. Geez, I was just bringing in a bit of Episcopalian
>> stuff, the conflict between the Low, Broad, and High church, which
>> is pretty much a dead issue now, but was quite lively when I was
>> growing up. Yeah, yeah, there are Protestant aspect to the
>> Episcopal church,

> Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is quite
> general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is in terms
> of doctrine.

I'd disagree.

> Your church has more doctrinal agreement with Presbyterians
> and even Methodists (despite their being a spin-off of Anglicanism) than
> with Rome, which is why your church has had fellowship with the more
> doctrinally loose factions of those traditions. You're closer to full
> fellowship with PCUSA and ELCA than with Rome, even before all your
> radical moves to the left (with which even those liberal bodies disagree
> with you).

>> but Anglo-Catholics like to play those down, and
>> have always stressed that we are Catholic and catholic, not Protestant.

> You are the first Episcopalian I have *ever* encountered who has taken
> such exception.

Don't get out much, do you? Have you read anything about the Oxford
Movement?

As I've noted, my church also calls itself catholic
> (small c), as do other Reformed churches. That in no way is a high/low
> church distinction, it's an adjective rightly defining the church's
> doctrines stemming from the historical creeds (Apostles', Nicene,
> Athanasian) and confessions.

> I could make a very strong case that your church ceased being catholic
> many years ago as you started the steep decline into radicalism.

>> We're not a Protestant denomination in the same way the Presbyterians
>> or Baptists, or low-church Lutherans are, however. Here we follow
>> another Via Media. We have the Apostolic Succession for our clergy
>> (although it came through Scotland, not England). We are more like
>> the Orthodox in being Catholic but non-Roman than were are like the
>> more radical Protestant denominations.

> Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination,

Absolutely not.

<snip>

Rat

degeneRat wrote:
>>> You have some kind of beef with Henry VIII, evidently -- or you just
>>> have a beef with me and want to be contrary.
>
>> No, I'm striving for historical and doctrinal accuracy. Too bad you
>> don't share my standards.
>
> I'm glad I don't share your standards. They are pathetic.

Ha!!!!!!

You condone and approve of bestiality and pedophilia. Your standards are
marginal even within your peculiar, radical strain of Anglicanism.

<...>
>>> What I AM saying -- which was
>>> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
>>> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
>>> time.
>
>> What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called "Reformers,"
>> at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's doctrines.
>> However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not Protestant -- this
>> is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman Catholics.
>
> Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.

Bullshit.

> I doubt you
> would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
> of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.

Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and protestantism
in general. See for yourself:

>> Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests, and that is
>> certainly what Henry did. He didn't accept the counsel originally
>> offered him in the matter and "shopped" for a bishop until he found
>> one who'd engage in the sophistry he did to break with Rome.

Sound familiar "little type A in the arroyo"?

<...>
>> The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and Luther
>> had historical precedents.
>
> It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.

Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
cannot name ONE.

> Everyone at the
> time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.

No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it. The
differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol

<snip>
>>> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
>>> including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
>>> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
>>> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
>>> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.
>
>> Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
>> compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.
>
> Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?

NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.

<snip>
>> Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
>> quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
>> in terms of doctrine.
>
> I'd disagree.

I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.

<snip>
>>> We're not a Protestant denomination in the same way the Presbyterians
>>> or Baptists, or low-church Lutherans are, however. Here we follow
>>> another Via Media. We have the Apostolic Succession for our clergy
>>> (although it came through Scotland, not England). We are more like
>>> the Orthodox in being Catholic but non-Roman than were are like the
>>> more radical Protestant denominations.
>
>> Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination,
>
> Absolutely not.

Absolutely, yes. Consider how many of your fellow churchmen overseas
have had to break fellowship for your apostacies. Consider how many here
in the US are compelled to either dust their feet (very fitting
Scriptural allusion given the circumstances) or remain and fight. You
harbor bishops who are agnostics and quite possibly atheists (Spong) and
now ordain divorced clerics who shack up with men (Robinson). You are
very, very radical even within Anglicanism.

usual suspect wrote:

> Rat wrote:

<snip>

>>>> What I AM saying -- which was
>>>> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
>>>> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
>>>> time.

>>> What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called
>>> "Reformers," at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's
>>> doctrines. However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not
>>> Protestant -- this is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman
>>> Catholics.

>> Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.

> Bullshit.

>> I doubt you
>> would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
>> of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.

> Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and protestantism
> in general. See for yourself:

>>> Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests,

No, Humpty Dumpty -- when discussing the history of the 16th and
17th centuries, it is not. Protestant is a specific historical
term in that context, and if you are not willing to accept the
language of reputable scholars in the field, then you might as
well call Henry a space alien or an Antedeluvian, or whatever other
strange term you invent, but your term will have no historical
meaning anyone familiar with the period would recognize.

Get back to me when you have read a book or two.

<snip>

>>> The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and
>>> Luther had historical precedents.

>> It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.

> Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
> cannot name ONE.

>> Everyone at the
>> time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.

> No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
> Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
> that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
> Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
> remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
> evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it. The
> differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
> primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
> NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol

Yes, Nitwit -- Henry disagreed with the Protestants on every one of
those issues, coming down firmly on the Roman side of the controversy,
except for the issue of the Pope's authority in England, where again,
as I said, his dissent was not based on Protestant grounds, but on much
earlier Constantinian grounds. Henry supported transubstantiation. He
forbade priests to marry (leading Cranmer to have to hide his wife ),
and he did not believe in sufficiency of Scripture. He was not Protestant.

> <snip>

>>>> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
>>>> including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
>>>> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
>>>> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
>>>> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.

>>> Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
>>> compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.

>> Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?

> NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
> and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.

But you are incorrect to do so. You are inventing a new meaning for
Protestant which is not historically valid for the period.

> <snip>

>>> Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
>>> quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
>>> in terms of doctrine.

>> I'd disagree.

> I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.

*LOL* That rich, coming from someone who doesn't even know what
Protestant means.

> <snip>

>>> Your church *is* a radical Protestant denomination,

>> Absolutely not.

> Absolutely, yes.

Absolutely not.

<snip>

Rat

degeneRat wrote:

> <snip>
>
>>>>> What I AM saying -- which was
>>>>> absolutely true -- was that he did NOT support any of the doctrines
>>>>> being put forward by the Protestant factions on the continent at the
>>>>> time.
>
>
>>>> What you call "Protestant factions" are more often called
>>>> "Reformers," at least insofar as they sought to reform the church's
>>>> doctrines. However, you are wrong to insist that Henry was not
>>>> Protestant -- this is a term accepted by Anglicans and by Roman
>>>> Catholics.
>
>
>>> Not all of them -- certainly not by most historians either.
>
>
>> Bullshit.
>
>
>>> I doubt you
>>> would find one reputable historian who would claim Henry was a follower
>>> of any of the Protestant factions on the Continent at the time.
>
>
>> Strawman -- I distinguished between reformed doctrine and
>> protestantism in general. See for yourself:
>
>
>>>> Protestant is a rather general term for one who protests,
>
>
> No, Humpty Dumpty --

Yes, retard.

> when discussing the history of the 16th and
> 17th centuries, it is not. Protestant is a specific historical
> term in that context, and if you are not willing to accept the
> language of reputable scholars in the field, then you might as
> well call Henry a space alien or an Antedeluvian, or whatever other
> strange term you invent, but your term will have no historical
> meaning anyone familiar with the period would recognize.
>
> Get back to me when you have read a book or two.

Evangelical and reformed are synonyms:
--------
....[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
centres of pilgrimage.

These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII. The King was a keen
theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his
new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the
alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous
policies.
http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
----------
King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that criticised
the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of the things
that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII
ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land
from the church. However Henry did this for political gains, not because
he supported the ideas of Luther. However because of his actions Henry
VIII laid the foundations of Protestantism in England which under the
rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic to
a Protestant nation. By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country
was complete.
http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
----------
Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
restored England’s honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil, English
Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
------------
When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set up
a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme leadership.
http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
------------
Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.

Maybe YOU should get back to ME.

> <snip>
>
>>>> The Reformation was hardly radical: the teachings of Calvin and
>>>> Luther had historical precedents.
>
>>> It certainly was radical, in a wide variety of ways.
>
>> Like your list of 350 benefits for straight couples, I suppose you
>> cannot name ONE.
>
>>> Everyone at the
>>> time considered it radical, both on the Roman and the non-Roman side.
>
>> No! What was the initial response by the papists at the Diet of
>> Augsburg? It *wasn't* that the teachings were novel or radical, it was
>> that they were true. Indeed, Eck agreed with most of the Augsburg
>> Confession -- there were, of course, some areas of disagreement which
>> remain to this day. The whole purpose at Augsburg was to show that the
>> evangelicals were not engaged in radical teachings. They proved it.
>> The differences were left to transubstantiation, marriage of priests,
>> primacy of the pope, sufficiency of Scripture, etc. -- IRONICALLY,
>> NITWIT, THE SAME THINGS YOUR CHURCH REMAINS DIVIDED OVER WITH ROME! lol
>
> Yes, Nitwit -- Henry disagreed with the Protestants on every one of
> those issues,

That isn't the issue, degeneRat. Not everyone considered every aspect of
the Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in
areas, e.g., the sale of indulgences.

> coming down firmly on the Roman side of the controversy,

Not so firmly. The link to Britannia above notes his flirtation with
reformed doctrine for some time.

> except for the issue of the Pope's authority in England, where again,
> as I said, his dissent was not based on Protestant grounds,

One who protests. He was protestant in the broad sense, though not
altogether with respect to doctrine (despite his brief flirtations with it).

> but on much earlier Constantinian grounds.

Which were also grounds noted by Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, et al.

> Henry supported transubstantiation. He
> forbade priests to marry (leading Cranmer to have to hide his wife ),
> and he did not believe in sufficiency of Scripture.

See above.

> He was not Protestant.

Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.

>> <snip>
>
>
>>>>> Several of those close to Henry had Protestant leanings,
>>>>> including Anne Boleyn and Catherine Parr, and certainly Cromwell and
>>>>> Cranmer (both of whom had spent time on the continent -- Cranmer in
>>>>> Germany ). But Henry firmly squelched any effort to change the
>>>>> doctrinal aspects of the Church as long as he lived.
>
>
>>>> Correct, he sought only divorce -- a trivial and selfish matter
>>>> compared to the doctrinal abuses of Rome.
>
>
>>> Er...doesn't this contradict your earlier claim he was a Protestant?
>
>
>> NO, dimwit. I distinguished between reformed (specifically doctrinal)
>> and protestant (more general protest against Rome). NITWIT.
>
> But you are incorrect to do so.

No, I am correct. Scholars agree. Only sophists with axes to grind don't
-- and funny that they're the same ones who don't accept the *whole*
context of AW movement and its ******* spawn you call "post-1970s AR"
and make similarly narrow distinctions to avoid dealing with real issues.

> You are inventing a new meaning for
> Protestant which is not historically valid for the period.

Not at all. I've said repeatedly Protestant in a broad manner, meaning
one who was/is at odds with Rome, as distinguished from Reformed
*doctrine*. That is valid and accepted use of the term.

>> <snip>
>
>
>>>> Not aspects at all and you're arguing semantically. Protestant is
>>>> quite general, but Reformed is more specifically what your church is
>>>> in terms of doctrine.
>
>
>>> I'd disagree.
>
>> I know, but it's because you don't understand Christian doctrine.
>
> *LOL* That rich, coming from someone who doesn't even know what
> Protestant means.

I do, and as noted in the links above, Henry was protestant in two
senses. First, doctrinally: he did dabble in reformed doctrine for a
while but he did return to a conservative Catholicism sans the papacy.
Second, his act of PROTEST against the pope was, inherently, protestant.
It's not my shortcoming that you refuse to accept the generally accepted
broad meanings of words.

<snip>

Words, Humpty Dumpty, words -- obviously mean to you only what you
want them to mean, not anything having any relationship to reality.

usual suspect wrote:

<snip>
> ...[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
> permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
> Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
> acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
> in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
> official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
> Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
> centres of pilgrimage.

Cromwell, not Henry; churches, not individuals. Cromwell WAS a supporter
of the continental reformers/Protestants, which was why he wanted Henry
to marry a German Protestant princess, a tactic which backfired for him
and the Protestants in England disastrously.

It's interesting the Cromwell funded the publication and distribution of
those Bibles, too. He's been given a bum rap by a lot of popular fiction.

> These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
> sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII.

Pretty small "high watermark".

> The King was a keen
> theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his
> new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the
> alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous
> policies.
> http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
> ----------

Yes -- he reversed his policies.

> King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
> praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that criticised
> the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of the things
> that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII
> ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land
> from the church.

NOTE

> * However Henry did this for political gains, not because
> he supported the ideas of Luther. *

NOTE

Also, the Roman church had many internal protests against abuses by
the hierarchy and the religious orders. By your definition, St. Francis
was a "Protestant" and the founder of the Cistercians was a
"Protestant." Since both of them are Roman saints, I don't think the
Roman church agrees with you on that.

> However because of his actions Henry
> VIII laid the foundations of Protestantism in England which

NOTE
* * under the
> rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic to
> a Protestant nation.*

NOTE

Not under the rule of Henry. Which was what I said.

> By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country
> was complete.
> http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
> ----------
> Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
> Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
> painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
> Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
> aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
> Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
> Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
> ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
> His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
> England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
> restored England’s honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
> chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
> fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil,

> English
> Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
> ------------

Who are these "English Protestants"?

> When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
> because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
> support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set up
> a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme leadership.
> http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
> ------------

Not (Protestant) or Protestant. Merely non-Roman. The Orthodox Church
broke with Rome over doctrinal and organizational issues; that did not
make it Protestant.

> Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
> Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.

Popularly, not correctly.

<snip>


> That isn't the issue, Rat. Not everyone considered every aspect of
> the Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in
> areas, e.g., the sale of indulgences.

Yes -- after the Reformation pushed the Romans into the
Counterreformation.

<snip>

>> He was not Protestant.

> Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.

Thank you. I agree. That was my point. Protestant/reformed
mean the same thing here. "protestant" may mean something else,
but it is not the word I am using, or the term I intend to
use. Henry was not a Protestant. You agree.

You are the most niggling, sophistical person I have ever
read. You present material AGAIN (as in the homosexual
animal controversy) which supports my position -- because my
position is correct -- and evidently don't even realize you
are doing so.

<snip>
> First, doctrinally: he did dabble in reformed doctrine for a
> while but he did return to a conservative Catholicism sans the papacy.
> <snip>

As I said.

Rat

degeneRat & Sewer wrote:
> Words, Humpty Dumpty, words -- obviously mean to you only what you
> want them to mean, not anything having any relationship to reality.

I use words appropriately. You don't.

>> ...[A] great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal
>> permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538
>> Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches
>> acquire a copy of the English Bible. The central position of scripture
>> in Protestant belief made it vital to make the text available, and an
>> official version gave the English Bible the stamp of approval.
>> Cromwell's Injunctions also took a strong line against images, and
>> centres of pilgrimage.
>
> Cromwell, not Henry;

From whence did the "royal permission" come?

> churches, not individuals. Cromwell WAS a supporter
> of the continental reformers/Protestants, which was why he wanted Henry
> to marry a German Protestant princess, a tactic which backfired for him
> and the Protestants in England disastrously.
>
> It's interesting the Cromwell funded the publication and distribution of
> those Bibles, too. He's been given a bum rap by a lot of popular fiction.
>
>> These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially
>> sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII.
>
> Pretty small "high watermark".
>
>> The King was a keen theologian, and was prepared to incorporate
>> evangelical ideas into his new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't
>> comfortable with the alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed
>> most of his previous policies.
>> http://www.britannia.com/history/articles/relpolh8.html
>> ----------
>
> Yes -- he reversed his policies.
>
>> King Henry VIII was initially opposed to the ideas of Luther. he was
>> praised by the pope for a pamphlet that he wrote in 1521 that
>> criticised the German monk. However after the Split with Rome many of
>> the things that Luther said should happen, did happen in England.

NOTE. Hehe.

>> Henry VIII ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much
>> money and land from the church.
>
> NOTE
>
>> * However Henry did this for political gains, not because he
>> supported the ideas of Luther. *

A point I have repeatedly made and you repeatedly denied.

> NOTE
>
> Also, the Roman church had many internal protests against abuses by
> the hierarchy and the religious orders. By your definition, St. Francis
> was a "Protestant" and the founder of the Cistercians was a
> "Protestant." Since both of them are Roman saints, I don't think the
> Roman church agrees with you on that.

In the sense and to the extent that they protested, they are protestants.

>> However because of his actions Henry VIII laid the foundations of
>> Protestantism in England which
> NOTE

Laid the foundations of ProtestantISM. That applies to doctrine, not the
mere act of protest. I stand by my use of the term.

> * * under the
>> rule of Edward and Elizabeth would transform England from a Catholic
>> to a Protestant nation.*
> NOTE
>
> Not under the rule of Henry. Which was what I said.

I did not make any claim that Henry VIII did anything different. My only
claim is that he is a Protestant insofar as he broke with Rome.

>> By 1603 the Protestant Reformation in this country was complete.
>> http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/pro...eformation.htm
>> ----------
>> Henry VIII (1491-1547), king of England (1509-1547), the image of the
>> Renaissance king as immortalized by German artist Hans Holbein, who
>> painted him hands on hips, legs astride, exuding confidence and power.
>> Henry VIII had six wives, fought numerous wars in Europe, and even
>> aspired to become Holy Roman Emperor in order to extend his control to
>> Europe. He ruthlessly increased the power of royal government, using
>> Parliament to sanction his actions. Henry ruled through powerful
>> ministers who, like his six wives, were never safe in their positions.
>> His greatest achievement was to initiate the Protestant Reformation in
>> England....Viewed by some as the embodiment of the warrior king who
>> restored England’s honor, by others as a tyrant who ruled by the
>> chopping block, the life of Henry VIII has been a source of continuous
>> fascination. Catholic writers pictured him as the devil,
>
>
>> English Protestants credited him as the founder of their religion.
>> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...enry_VIII.html
>> ------------
>
> Who are these "English Protestants"?

Your progenitors.

>> When he sought to nullify his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon
>> because of the lack of a male heir, it was clear that Rome would not
>> support him, so in 1531, Henry broke with the Catholic Church and set
>> up a (Protestant) National Church in England under his supreme
>> leadership.
>> http://renaissance-faire.com/Renfair...enry-VIIIA.htm
>> ------------
>
> Not (Protestant) or Protestant. Merely non-Roman.

No. He protested and broke with Rome, and is a protestant in that sense
of the word.

> The Orthodox Church
> broke with Rome over doctrinal and organizational issues; that did not
> make it Protestant.

Some Orthodox think Romanists are Protestants, and they may be correct
in the broader meaning the word.

>> Merriam-Webster: ...*broadly* [as I noted] : a Christian not of a
>> Catholic or Eastern church; one who protests.
>
> Popularly, not correctly.

No, correctly. Words can have broad and narrow meanings. I have been
emphatic in distinguishing between the two. You have obstinately refused
to cede the legitimacy of any such distinction which is why this whole
discussion of semantics is amusing me.

> <snip>
>
>> That isn't the issue, Rat. Not everyone considered every aspect of the
>> Reformation to be radical -- Rome even started some reforms in areas,
>> e.g., the sale of indulgences.
>
> Yes -- after the Reformation pushed the Romans into the
> Counterreformation.

*yawn*

> <snip>
>
>>> He was not Protestant.
>
>> Yes, he was. He was not reformed, though.
>
> Thank you. I agree. That was my point.

No, you self-absorbed WHORE, it was not.

> Protestant/reformed mean the same thing here.

No, I very carefully and CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY distinguished between
the two when calling Henry a protestant.

> "protestant" may mean something else,

No, it DOES mean something else -- something which you seem to have
previously not known or considered. Face it, you are hardly the
intellectual giant you think you are.

> but it is not the word I am using, or the term I intend to
> use.

The world doesn't revolve around child-abandoning *******s in Santa Fe.
I deliberately distinguished between protestant and reformed, and you
failed to accept such a legitimate distinction.

<...>

> You agree.

No, you don't understand the definitions of protestant beyond what you
intend it to mean -- which is a narrow definition. I repeatedly and
clearly distinguished between that definition and the broader meaning of
the word. I am correct, and you are nothing but a sophist ignorantly
quibbling over semantics.


<snip self-absorbed delusions of grandeur>

Whatever, Usual

Say hello to the homosexual animals you deny exist and the
non-Protestant king you deny existed, and
ignore reality all you want. You are biologically and
historically illiterate, as well as uncharitable, rude and
bigoted. But what else should I expect from an anti-AR type?

<snip>

Rat

All good occultists are vegetarians and Jesus was not one of them.

-Rick-
Return of the Stargods
Site: http://stargods.org
Download Book: http://stargods.org/BookAd.htm

..
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Swan wrote:
> > Swan, here, to offer some context.
>
> You failed.
>
> >>>> Jesus and his disciples ate of the Passover lamb every year.
> >>>
> >>> We may assume so, although it is only an assumption.
> >>
> >> It's among the safest assumptions one can make, like the sun will rise
> >> in the East tomorrow morning.
> >>
> >>> There are now services which have been written for a vegetarian
> >>> Passover supper, which are used by vegetarian and AR-supporting
> >>> Jews.
> >>
> >> Pretty recent developments. A Jew of that era -- with very, very few
> >> exceptions -- ate the Passover lamb as commanded.
> >
> > Of course they did. But they didn't eat the lamb we eat today.
>
> Yes, they did. Your argument is as specious as the Baptist
> tee-totallers' about the alcohol content in wine of that era. Remember
> the parable of the wineskins: why would they burst if the grape juice
> didn't ferment? The foods eaten in that era are much the same as today.
>
> > The lamb
> > (and the ox, the cattle, etc) was not penned in tiny cages,
>
> Most sheep today are grazed. So are cattle, bison, etc.
>
> > fed on scraps of its dead kindred,
>
> Perhaps you were unaware that such practices have been banned in the US
> and most countries.
>
> > injected with hormones and antibiotics
>
> Not all meat is injected with hormones or antibiotics. You know this,
> don't you?
>
> > and deprived of its mother's care.
>
> Funny you would choose that argument after Karen abandoned her son.
>
> <snip rest of hyperbole>
>

degeneRat & Sewer wrote:
> Whatever, Usual

Hehehehehe. No, not "whatever." Words mean things and I proved it to you
yet again. I even got you -- unintentionally, I might add -- when
playing with words in the subject another thread. In your benighted zeal
to one-up me on vulturine versus vultural, you proved what a bitter old
crank you really are.

Your trite and petty dismissal of the facts about your church and its
history shows your lack of erudition, not mine. It also proves you're
disingenuous when it comes to issues, which was no surprise given your
categorical rejection of the historical continuum of AW and AR. As Jon
has rightly noted, you are a classical one-upper and a rank sophist.

<snip of ad hominem lies>