Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
See what you've done now, Brian and Howard, Keith wants us to get back to the thread title...'Who is head of the Church of England and how much can I wind Alexander up ?' How dare you post about that other religion where they kick a ball about all over the place. I wish I'd said 1964 now...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
without wishing to be pedantic baz, 1964 was the year that the irons won their first ever trophy, the f.a. cup.
they beat preston north end by three goals to two, the winner coming from ronnie boyce in the last minute.
not sure who was head of the church of england at the time, my money would be on geoff hurst failing that bobby moore.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
Martin Peters. Two saintly names there so not off topic any more.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Lesley, the four versions of the Gospel, written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, were indeed written in Greek, because all four spoke Greek. Many Jews in those days spoke Greek, especially if they were living in the Diaspora in Greek-speaking regions.
Similarly, Jews in the Diaspora living in other regions spoke the language of the land they lived in; however, Jews usually knew biblical Hebrew too.
The Jews living in Judea and Galilee spoke Aramaic, as did the Jews in Syria, Phoenicia and the Euphrates.
Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew.
The authors of the four gospels are all Apostles, and they lived in the first century.
Of these, only John was one of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus.
The Evangelist Matthew bore the same name as the Disciple Matthew; it's unlikely they were the same man, as Matthew Evangelist made no mention in his gospel of having been a direct Disciple (one of the Twelve), whereas John did.
Furthermore, Evangelist Matthew's gospel is based on that of Mark, as is Luke's.
This Makes Mark, Matthew and Luke "Pietrine" Evangelists, meaning they each base their respective recount on the oral testimony to Jesus Son of God given by Peter the Apostle.
Matthew and Luke also included testimony given unto them by Mary Mother of Jesus.
If you're following my posts here carefully, which seems to be the case, then you may notice that Peter did not write a version of the Gospel, even though he was one of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus.
This is the reason why Peter needed a successor, someone who would put his words and testimony of Jesus into writing for all time. This person was Mark the Evangelist.
Without Mark and the other Evangelists, there would be no Church, and no memory of Jesus.
The Catholic Church, in excluding the Evangelists as St. Peter's successors, initiated a line of popes that was a mistake from the start. The popes are not St. Peter's successors! The three Synoptic Evangelists are, beginning with Mark.
St. John, being one of the original Twelve Disciples, and therefore equal to St. Peter in terms of Witness of Jesus Christ, has a Ministry of his own, hence his Gospel is not considered Synoptic, as it is not based on St. Peter's testimony, but on John's own testimony to Christ.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
howard/barrie,you forgot to mention nobby styles and Gordon banks,two good players at the time.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
oh yeah barrie,something from you tube.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
That was fascinating Brian. I have to admit I thought it would be the goals from the 1966 final, bur I'm pleased to see it was educational and informative. Learned something too. king indeed, haha.
I was more of a Roger Hunt fan in '66, but he's stopped playing now, as has my all time football hero Tommy Smith. This could be the start of a great new thread.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
Thanks Brian that was one of the most sensible posts on this thread as it was entertaining as well as informative .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barrie
it was eddie bovington who played in the 1964 cup final, martin peters took his place the following year in the european cup winners cup final.
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
..and I saw 'Arry play at West Ham, along with Hurst Peters and Moore. I was going to start a football thread, but then I thought someone would probably mess it up with politics or religion (the other sort) so I'm sticking strictly to the subject of faith schools, because I went to one and played football there, as well as reading lessons in church.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
I apologise for those not wishing you to get your point of view across
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
Hahaha...that is so sad Keith, was your bottom lip sticking out when you typed that ?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My point of view has got across, Keith.
It's a known point of view.
It's a straight forward fact:
Saint Peter, in one of hist two Epistles (dictated by Peter and written by one of his adjutants named Silvas,), made known to his audience and to the Church in general at that time, that he was preparing a way for the Word of Jesus to be made known for all times.
Later, Mark the Evangelist wrote the first version of the Gospel as imparted to him by the Apostle Peter.
The Catholic Church, centuries later, initiated the line of "successors of Saint Peter" - the popes - starting with Linus, who, although he lived in the first century and is mentioned once in an Epistle of Saint Paul, wrote nothing in the New Testament, and neither did those who follow in the line of popes.
Saint Mark is the Successor of the Apostle Peter.
However, Keith, the Establishment knows that the Vatican would come to an end as an authority, and not only.
They have plans, they want to keep the monarchy with all its titles.
If the pope is not the head of a Church, then neither is a Windsor.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
So why did the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Truth not make it to the New Testament but remained hidden for 2,000 years? I believe they have been scientifically dated to 80 years younger than the new Testament.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have never heard of any of those three, i must try to keep up.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Theres many bigger issues that alexander glosses over
but of course the main one is this new church I can find no records of it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The New Testament, Lesley, is estimated to have been started in its written form around 50 AD;
St. Mark's gospel is estimated to be from around the year 65, the last gospel, that of St. John, was written around the end of the first century.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are in between those of Mark and John.
The Apocryphal writings, which you no doubt refer to, were not written 80 years earlier, otherwise they would have preceded the Ministry of Christ on Earth.
My advice is to keep away from them.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Lesley, the 'Gospels' to which you refer were written between 280 AD and 450 AD; writing style, use of language, dating, etc. are contemporaneous with these periods and entirely different from the style and language and dating used by and determined for the Gospel writers who were contemporaries of Jesus (the earliest evidence that a Gospel of St Thomas was in circulation within early church records dates from around 400-450 AD for example, supposedly discovered by a gnostic initiate in a jar in the desert in Egypt). These writings all originate from gnosticism and were the result of the sort of mystic revelations prevalent within the gnostic movement of the 3rd-5th centuries.
Earliest manuscripts for the Biblical Gospel of Mark have been dated to the late 40's AD. Manuscripts of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew have been dated anywhere between 55 and 80AD, Earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John date from 55-65 AD. The Acts, Epistles and Revelation all have demonstrable manuscript evidence from between 75 and 95 AD.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Neil
you seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject
Alexander is unable to answer the question on his new English church
is there such a thing?
is there a church within the church of England that doesn't recognise the queen as head of the church?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS