DonnyTJS

Leaving aside God's view of Chinese cooking implements and their place in the economy of salvation, I'm not ignoring anything. You however are doing precisely that by failing to explain Romans 10: 10-13. We know that the context is not Israel because Paul explicitly says so. I don't see how I'm the one who's ignorant when you're the one who's ignoring the scripture.

And what about Romans 10: 11-13? That pasting is simply dishonest - talk about taking verses out of context, Paul is explicitly widening the earlier discussion to include those beyond Israel, as I've pointed out above ... Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

It's not me, it's Paul. I'm merely pointing out what Paul wrote. And everything Paul wrote was within the new dispensation since it has its roots in the Damascene Revelation.

I'm not adding anything, I'm quoting Paul, in context, in which he explicitly states the connection between 'confessing with the mouth' and 'salvation'. In 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 Paul tells his readers that they are saved "if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you" - and Paul's preaching includes Romans 10: 10-13.

So, by 'context' you mean ignoring the verses that counter your claim. I'll paste them again: Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Couldn't be clearer. The context is there showing that Paul is no longer referring solely to Israel.

Yeah, I tend not to read links in this sort of discussion because the source text is there for all to see and everything else is interpretation - though how it's possible to interpret "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek" as "For there is a huge difference between the Jew and the Greek" isn't really interpretation so much as wilful misreading. It is you who is removing the context - the text explicitly moves at this point from discussing Israel to stating that the same rules apply for both believing Jew and Gentile because it's "the same Lord over all" ... "for there is no difference".

Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Paul and his pesky bible-blending. For a set of books that contain no contradictions, the Bible sure seems to spark some controversy.

Yes, I agree that that makes far more sense than the 'Roman guard' crap in the stuff you initially posted. Honestly Scotty, I'm sure you're a busy bloke an' all, but you'd be far better off posting your own stuff than folk you find on the internet - you're way brighter than this one.

Yeah, I'm good with all that, Scotty. I still consider it odd that only Matthew mentions the guard, and I think the explanation that this was to counter Jewish claims of the disciples stealing the body (which, as you say, is explicitly stated in Matthew itself) makes sense - it's just that I see it as a later addition once the accusations of body snatching had been made. Matthew contains plenty of evidence suggesting it was written for a Jewish-Christian audience, as opposed to Luke and John aiming at a gentile / Hellenistic readership. My only real objection was to all the pseudo-historical crap about guards being responsible for six-square-feet of space and being immolated for falling asleep, etc. As you point out, the guards need not have been Roman, but your man assumes they were, based upon no evidence whatsoever. It's just written for gullible idiots who have no conception of the problematic nature of historical documentation, and I don't think anyone of this board falls into that category...

Non-Biblical fabrications such as this are remarkable. Even if such 'strict rules' existed, and were applicable to that time and place, there's no way of knowing the degree to which they were followed in practice. The claims are meaningless if no source is cited. Furthermore, Matthew 28 states that the guards were bribed to say that they had fallen asleep - a brave thing to do if execution were the punishment: [11] Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. [12] And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, [13] Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. [14] And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. [15] So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.. Why would the guards feel certain that a bunch of Jewish priests would be able to dissuade Pilate from administering the 'strict rules' that applied to guards flouting their duty? The other odd thing is that this is based solely on the version of the burial found in Matthew. The other gospels don't mention any religious leaders asking Pilate to secure the tomb on the Saturday - quite the contrary. In Mark, Pilate gives the body to Joseph of Arimathaea, and Joseph is able to roll the stone in himself (as he is in Matthew). There is no mention of a guard being placed, Roman or otherwise, and the women come to anoint the body on the Sunday, evidently not expecting any problems in accessing it. Luke agrees with Mark. Body given to J of A, women witness the laying out in the sepulchre and return after the Sabbath in order to anoint the corpse. John suggests that this was just a temporary resting place until the Sabbath was over as the tomb was near at hand. Again, the body is given to Joseph by Pilate and he and others prepare it and place it in the sepulchre where Mary Magdalene visits it on the Sunday to find it empty. No mention of a Roman guard. The interpolation in Matthew is presumably there to counter Jewish suggestions that the disciples stole the body. The passage above suggests that it's still being used for that purpose. North American Christianity can be a weird thing.

Just you and anyone else who's been searching "Big Penises" on Google. That's how algorithms work ...

Ian Curtis chose Iggy Pop's The Idiot as the soundtrack to his suicide. That's a great miserable album.

Arf ... not my soberest of posts ... Here's the album (Dutch version) in all its glory.

Administering mouth-to-mouth?

But that quote doesn't suggest that he fell ill 'straight' after attending the incident. I've not really been following this, but I thought I'd heard or read that some time had passed since the father and daughter were in the restaurant (where it was being suggested they'd come into contact with the nerve agent) before they became ill in the park - though things may have moved on since then. As I say, not been following it.

I was in Cairo for Italia 90. Watched some games (Bobby Robson's world-beaters ) on the roof of some swank hotel (Hilton? Sheraton?) where they'd set up a giant screen. However, the most memorable match (well, match-aftermath; the game was shite) was when Egypt drew with the Netherlands. The entire city went ape, I've rarely if ever seen such elation in such large numbers. Collected the Pirelli album - nearly complete - and distinctly remember Scotland being the most hideous squad by some margin in the entire collection.

Baby Driver was pretty poor, but it was really an old Edgar Wright music video (featuring Howard and Vince) that he decided stretch to a couple of hours... This 'un:

Yes, good point. I don't see that either. Also interesting that the Herald quote, slightly enlarged, is used to show both uses of 'Hun'. I've not seen online usage in a printed dictionary (not that I've bought one for years, and they're dying out), but the modern way of going is to collect all usage into a 'corpus' of the language and use that as the basis for studying linguistic evolution, and it's almost entirely made up of online chatter. I no longer work in a place that gives me access to the online OED, and I'm too tight to subscribe myself, but that's where to look.

The term 'attrib.' in the dictionary is a grammar term. It means that the word, in this case 'Hun', is an attributive noun (which means it can join directly to another noun as a modifier, as in the phrase 'Hun bastard'). Like any decent dictionary, this one lists examples of the term in print, showing its usage. The meaning of any word depends on its usage, not solely on its definition. The entry for 'Hun' in the 2005 supplement gives three examples of its use as an abusive term for 'Protestant' in print, the earliest of which is from The Patter (this, presumably, is the earliest printed source that the compilers could find; that would be the conventional way of doing it). Dictionaries based on historical principles (which are the ones that list examples of usage), don't list all the times a term has been used, but just sufficient to show the meaning or shifting shades of meaning, hence the further quotes from the article in the Herald and in Welsh's Acid House. It's no more or less than that. The word isn't being 'defined' (or attributed), examples of its use in print with a particular meaning are being recorded.

Fascinating. You'd think that the connotations of 'bear' would be fairly obvious and fixed in the culture of a Scottish football board, but perhaps Ally B was trying to broaden its reach. The large, hairy male aspect brings to mind Bob 'The Bear' Hite (frontman of Canned Heat, and quite possibly a gay Rangers supporter for all I know. The band also contained Alan 'The Owl' Wilson, who was definitely a huge Wednesday fan):

Billy Bremner

Looking at getting a package for all games in Osaka or Kobe. Both are handy for where I'm based. Looking forward to it.

The archive seems to be down at the moment; hope it can be sorted. Still, I agree that AB in both his manifestations was an Accies / women's bottoms fan but, like you, it always struck me as an odd choice of user-name for a Scottish football board ... . I occasionally revert to 'Ally Bear' because the alternative just reminds me of the television magician, and for some reason AB's posting persona seems so very different - typing the original moniker reduces the cognitive dissonance.

Couldn't get on with it at all. Deleted my account after a couple of months and all junk mail magically stopped. These days I keep up to date with Twitter's Orwellian mind-sump by reading the links that Ally Bear assiduously provides us with ...

Fuck's sake, sbcmfc ...