Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2005 :: May ::
Failed Application
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0879  Thursday, 5 May 2005

[1]     From:   John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:35:16 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application

[2]     From:   Elliott Stone <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:55:35 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application

[3]     From:   Florence Amit <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 05 May 2005 05:08:07 +0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

[4]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 4 May 2005 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Briggs <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:35:16 +0100
Subject: 16.0869 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application

Peter Bridgman wrote:

 >Since most contemporaries dated parish reforms from 1547-48, John Briggs
 >is right in suggesting that the Reformation hadn't quite started by the
 >end of Henry's reign.

In actual religious terms, it didn't start until Edward VI's reign.

 >Leo, for his part, gave Henry the title 'Defender of the Faith' (and
 >despite what it says on our coins, this was not an inheritable title)

I suggest that you take this up with Philip II of Spain, who always
considered that he had inherited the title when he became King of England.

Don Bloom wrote:

 >Is that the Henry who broke with the papacy, declared himself head of
 >the church, and closed the monasteries?

That's the one.  He always considered himself (and was and is considered
by others) to be a Catholic - not a particularly Roman one, of course.
He was opposed to Protestantism, but was prepared to overlook that in
anyone who would aid his divorce.  There was a Catholic reaction in his
last years.  His daughter Mary insisted on restoring the religious
ceremonies to those of the last year of his reign - whatever they might
have been.

John Briggs

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Elliott Stone <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:55:35 -0400
Subject: 16.0869 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application

I must say that, as a Shakespeare fanatic, I would find the "bet" of
more interest if it was for a Thousand Pounds rather than Ten Thousand
Dollars!

Best,
Elliott H. Stone

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Florence Amit <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 05 May 2005 05:08:07 +0300
Subject: 16.0859 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0859 Failed Application

Dear forum,

If my yesterday's post is included I must temper it with the information
that Joseph Egert imparted and his explication. I judged the present
words of Bill Arnold and not the past ones that I had not read.

Florence  Amit

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 4 May 2005 20:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 16.0869 Failed Application
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0869 Failed Application

Joseph Egert writes, "Our resident Biblical scholar Bill Arnold concedes
'Christians are of a Judaic-Christian culture.'

Indeed, you have not read my book, Joseph.  As I have noted in my posts
related to my thoughts on the Bible, I cannot be held accountable
forwhat I have not written to this message board.  But I have suggested
my book is available: http://www.anoldbooklook.com

Then Joseph Egert writes, "He was not always so generous. In 2003 (SHK
14.2128), he wrote: 'And what [Jesus] added was the eleventh
commandment, the tenet of Christianity: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself." Now, this was the newly created commandment of Will S's
"Saviour." And this commandment is the backbone of the New Testament and
replaced the eye-for-an-eye doctrine of the Old Testament."

Well, Joseph, what makes you think I was not generous?  I was merely
citing my interpretation of the New Testament.  Jesus himself did note
He was descended from the line of David.  He was knowledgeable in Old
Testament law and stories.  In answer to questions from His disciples
about which commandment was the greatest He gave His answer, which is
found in several places in the NT, but I will cite two, which appear in
my book, from the Shakespearean-Age KJV, Matthew, C 22, Vs. 35-38:

35 Then one of them *which was* a lawyer, asked *him a question,*
tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which *is* the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."

38 "This is the first and great commandment."

Then to, Mark, C 12, V 31:

31 "And the second *is* like, *namely,* this, 'Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.'  There is none other commandment greater than these."

Now, Joseph, I would remind you that I am quoting the KJV, but I do note
my observation.  Generally, in the Bible, reference to the
*commandments* are interpreted to be the *ten commandments* and they are
not to be found in Leviticus 19.  What Christologers refer to as the
eleventh commandment is Jesus' quote from Mark, C 12, V 31, and a few
others in the NT.
Jesus did Himself state He came not to change the law, but to add to it.
  That He elevated this commandment from His God to such a high
standard, second only to His first commandment, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
mind," was the doing of Jesus and I only refer you to text, and my
interpretation therefrom.  Indeed, I stated that the NT version was
"newly created" as it was, by Jesus.  After all, he was a Jew, a
descendant of King David, according to text.  I do not find that Saul
had anything to do with the matter, as the text above proves otherwise.
  As I state in my book, what others have done in the name of Jesus is
their matter.

What Jesus said is His.  And He said His was the Will of God.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.