The perpetual calendar

wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 20:13:12 +0100, Adam Funk
wrote:

“A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly
display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi,
president of Trinity Diversity Connection. “By having the phrase ‘In
the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and
not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.”

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

A lot of people don't know that it's a title. (I bet there are some
people who even think that it was his surname.) Someone who is not from
a Judeo-Christian background would be even less likely to know.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:05:34 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:51:11 -0400, wrote:


Yes, I think this guy has a hard row to hoe regarding a Christian
college or even one with a Christian heritage. Maybe he had no idaa
what trinity meant in this context, but he has to pay for that.

If he went to a public college or university, I think he'd be right,
not just for his diploma but for everyone's. I wonder what the
status of that is.

The article says:
When Medina applied to Trinity, university staff told him it wasn't a
religious institution and that it maintained only a historical bond to
the Presbyterian Church.

My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In
the year of our Lord" on it. It's only fair. I paid the tuition with
money with "In God We Trust" on it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 23:48:54 -0400, wrote:

On 1 Apr 2010 20:19:32 -0700, R H Draney wrote:

filted:

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

What would everyone else call him, then?..."Jesus bar Joseph"?...

No.

"Josh Carpenter"?...r

I call him Jesus. If that would ever not be enough to make it clear,
I would say Jesus of Nazareth.

I have noticed that some radio and tv reporters and news readers call
him Jesus and some call him Jesus Christ. I think in the spirit of
objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of
Nazareth. It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ".

Don't stop there. Insist that the reporters use "Jesus, the alleged
Christ".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

R H Draney :
filted:

Are you sure it was he?

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

What would everyone else call him, then?..."Jesus bar Joseph"?...

NSOED says, of "Christ": "(The title, now usu. treated as a name, given
to) Jesus of Nazareth". I certainly regarded it as a name: I had no idea
that it was supposed to be a title. Actually I think I use it only as an
intensifier when cursing.

If that "weakens the appearance of [my] argument", someone's clutching
at straws.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ.

Disambiguation, for one. Arguments that "Jesus is not an actual
historical person." are rather easily disproven by pointing to any one
of numerous people with that name. (-:

wrote,in part:

I have noticed that some radio and tv reporters and news readers call
him Jesus and some call him Jesus Christ. I think in the spirit of
objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of
Nazareth. It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ".

You may be making too much of this. It is common for people to use
"Jesus Christ" when speaking of Jesus. It is also common for some to use
"Jesus the Christ." This happens even in "objective reporting,"
possibly, and perhaps simply, in deference to the reading audience.

Note: Pronouns referring to God and Jesus have ususally been
capitalized. However, I understand that the practice is waning. In fact,
my latest version of the Holy Bible (printed with "super giant print"
and published in 1996) does not capitalize the referential pronouns (he,
his, etc.). The only problem I can see with dropping the caps is that
"Him" rather than "him" does help the reader to know who ("Who"?) is
being mentioned without reading or rereading the whole passage.

--
Maria Conlon

On Apr 2, 4:48*am, wrote:
On 1 Apr 2010 20:19:32 -0700, R H Draney wrote:

filted:

What I don't understand is why those who don't believe in Jesus Christ
keep calling him Jesus Christ. *Isn't the core of the question whether
he was a christ or not? *It seems to me they weaken the appearance of
their argument, or the argument itself, when they call him by a title
one would otherwise think they think he doesn't deserve.

What would everyone else call him, then?..."Jesus bar Joseph"?...

No.

"Josh Carpenter"?...r

I call him Jesus. *If that would ever not be enough to make it clear,
I would say Jesus of Nazareth.

I have noticed that some radio and tv reporters and news readers call
him Jesus and some call him Jesus Christ. *I think in the spirit of
objective reporting, they should all call him Jesus or Jesus of
Nazareth. *It's a theological position to call him "Jesus Christ".

Someone ought to find out what the full technical scope of anointing
is. I know the Greek word christos means anointed, and is used to mean
anointed by or on behalf of the Lord (Hail to the Lord's anointed, as
the hymn goes) in an attempt to translate the Hebrew, but anyone who
was disposed to dispute the theological by or for whom point could
salve their conscience by taking anointed to mean mere pouring of oil
or rubbing of ointment.

Why, I've been anointed myself in the oil-pouring sense, and don't
claim any divine authority. I wasn't expecting to be anointed at the
time, and was a touch surprised. It must have been my winning smile.
Still, one can't complain.
--
franzi

franzi filted:

Someone ought to find out what the full technical scope of anointing
is. I know the Greek word christos means anointed, and is used to mean
anointed by or on behalf of the Lord (Hail to the Lord's anointed, as
the hymn goes) in an attempt to translate the Hebrew, but anyone who
was disposed to dispute the theological by or for whom point could
salve their conscience by taking anointed to mean mere pouring of oil
or rubbing of ointment.

Why, I've been anointed myself in the oil-pouring sense, and don't
claim any divine authority. I wasn't expecting to be anointed at the
time, and was a touch surprised. It must have been my winning smile.
Still, one can't complain.

"Pointy birds.
Oh pointy, pointy.
Anoint my head.
Anointy, nointy."
-- Steve Martin

.....r


--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:31:19 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
wrote:

tony cooper writes:

My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In
the year of our Lord" on it.

According to Stanford, I graduated

on the Fourteenth Day of June in the Year One Thousand Nine
Hundred and Eighty-Seven the Two Hundred-Eleventh Year of the
Republic and the Ninety-Sixth Academic Year of the University.

(sic on the lack of commas).

It's only fair. I paid the tuition with money with "In God We
Trust" on it.

Really? I never paid my tuition in cash.

Actually, I did. Not at Northwestern, but I did at Indiana
University. Tuition then was $110* a semester and I didn't have a
checking account. I saved money from various summer and part-time
jobs and put in a savings account. I withdrew a semester's cash
before heading off to campus because the bank I used didn't have an
outlet in Bloomington. There was no branch banking in Indiana in
those years. I paid for my tuition and other expenses in cash.

It wasn't really uncommon then. Some of the jobs I had paid in cash.
The wages were in a brown envelope - the pay packet preceded the pay
check - with the hours worked and such printed on the front.

I didn't have a checking account until I moved to the Chicago area and
opened one at Lake Shore Bank. I felt quite the big-shot when I wrote
my first check.

You youngsters don't understand that not everyone always had checking
accounts. I don't remember when my parents first opened a checking
account, but I do remember my mother's "envelope system" when I was in
grade school. My father would bring home his pay in cash and my
mother would put amounts of it in a booklet with individual envelopes
for designated expenses. So much a week would go in the "Coal"
envelope, so much in the "Electric" envelope, and so on.

*I think that figure's correct. Close, anyway.













--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Apr 2, 3:20*pm, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:31:19 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum





wrote:
tony cooper writes:

My diploma from Northwestern University (Evanston, IL, USA) has "In
the year of our Lord" on it.

According to Stanford, I graduated

* *on the Fourteenth Day of June in the Year One Thousand Nine
* *Hundred and Eighty-Seven the Two Hundred-Eleventh Year of the
* *Republic and the Ninety-Sixth Academic Year of the University.

(sic on the lack of commas). * *

It's only fair. *I paid the tuition with money with "In God We
Trust" on it.

Really? *I never paid my tuition in cash.

Actually, I did. *Not at Northwestern, but I did at Indiana
University. *Tuition then was $110* a semester and I didn't have a
checking account. *I saved money from various summer and part-time
jobs and put in a savings account. *I withdrew a semester's cash
before heading off to campus because the bank I used didn't have an
outlet in Bloomington. *There was no branch banking in Indiana in
those years. *I paid for my tuition and other expenses in cash. *

It wasn't really uncommon then. *Some of the jobs I had paid in cash.
The wages were in a brown envelope - the pay packet preceded the pay
check - with the hours worked and such printed on the front. *

I didn't have a checking account until I moved to the Chicago area and
opened one at Lake Shore Bank. I felt quite the big-shot when I wrote
my first check.

You youngsters don't understand that not everyone always had checking
accounts. *I don't remember when my parents first opened a checking
account, but I do remember my mother's "envelope system" when I was in
grade school. *My father would bring home his pay in cash and my
mother would put amounts of it in a booklet with individual envelopes
for designated expenses. *So much a week would go in the "Coal"
envelope, so much in the "Electric" envelope, and so on.

Checking accounts are becoming a thing of the past. The organizer of
the symposium I'm speaking at in Cologne next week wants to reimburse
me for my plane fare in cash, in euros -- because they don't use
checks in Germany any more. If the local ATMs don't allow me to make a
deposit into my US account, I'll have to carry approximately $1000 in
cash (they might be able to give me dollars!) back and deposit it
here.

*I think that figure's correct. *Close, anyway.