TSR Christian Apologetics Society
Scroll to see replies
I don't speak Hebrew very well, so I'll leave the linguistics to BNC.
But, on the matter of translation, most translations are fairly faithful to a reading of 'both/and'.
But even more importantly, it is no way an 'aspersion' to say that Matthew was proficient in the art of typological fulfilment, and conveys events and articulates tradition through an indigenous lens. It is only a contemporary, modernistic, model of writing, combined with a view of biblical authorship that need not always be utilised, that would lead one to see it as an aspersion. I for one have little theological or historical problem in saying that Matthew deliberately (as opposed to ignorantly or stupidly) has Jesus on both animals, in such a way as to to cement Old Testament principles, to convey this event with an interpretative practice common to the Israelite faithful, and to thrust home the point of Jesus' messiahship in a way fitting with contemporary reading techniques.
Indeed, there is an interpretative - or hermeneutical - caveat to be made here. It is usually Evangelicalism that has a problem at this sort of junction. And it is usually Evangelicalism that, in its method of interpretation at least, stresses the 'original' meaning, the authorial intention, if you will. It is said that in authorial intention, we find the totality of divine inspiration. I still find it strange, then, to see Evangelicals (and I talk as one of them) go to great pains to dismiss authorial intention as it perceived, for fear that it goes against biblical authority - say, for example, in the Genesis narratives or in historical/prophetical narratives. It may well be that the author utilises unexpected literary tools, performs certain interpretative tasks on previous texts or existing traditions, and in doing so was trying to make a profound theological point - subverting ritual and established authority or theology, perhaps, in order to say something fresh about God, or hammer home a radical ideal... such as the Messiahship of Christ
In this case, the authorial intent does not fit in easily with the Evangelical hermeneutic of scripture... the systematic, if you will. And so very often that sort of possibility is downplayed, in fear that it negates or undermines scriptural authority. Which is mighty strange, considering that - last I checked -scriptural authority finds its axis, again, in authorial intent. One would have assumed that far from undermining scripture, acknowleding patterns and practices otherwise unbecoming of cliched evangelical readings would enhance, challenge but ultimately develop Evangelicalism, far from hinder it.
Alas, the Evangelical hermeneutic is rarely questioned, even when the challenge comes from scripture itself
Tis a sad sight! For even God sided with the Job figure, and not with his traditionalist friends...
Anyway. I'll stop waxing lyrical now, and I'll wait for BNC to pick up the linguistics.
Nathan
But, on the matter of translation, most translations are fairly faithful to a reading of 'both/and'.
But even more importantly, it is no way an 'aspersion' to say that Matthew was proficient in the art of typological fulfilment, and conveys events and articulates tradition through an indigenous lens. It is only a contemporary, modernistic, model of writing, combined with a view of biblical authorship that need not always be utilised, that would lead one to see it as an aspersion. I for one have little theological or historical problem in saying that Matthew deliberately (as opposed to ignorantly or stupidly) has Jesus on both animals, in such a way as to to cement Old Testament principles, to convey this event with an interpretative practice common to the Israelite faithful, and to thrust home the point of Jesus' messiahship in a way fitting with contemporary reading techniques.
Indeed, there is an interpretative - or hermeneutical - caveat to be made here. It is usually Evangelicalism that has a problem at this sort of junction. And it is usually Evangelicalism that, in its method of interpretation at least, stresses the 'original' meaning, the authorial intention, if you will. It is said that in authorial intention, we find the totality of divine inspiration. I still find it strange, then, to see Evangelicals (and I talk as one of them) go to great pains to dismiss authorial intention as it perceived, for fear that it goes against biblical authority - say, for example, in the Genesis narratives or in historical/prophetical narratives. It may well be that the author utilises unexpected literary tools, performs certain interpretative tasks on previous texts or existing traditions, and in doing so was trying to make a profound theological point - subverting ritual and established authority or theology, perhaps, in order to say something fresh about God, or hammer home a radical ideal... such as the Messiahship of Christ
In this case, the authorial intent does not fit in easily with the Evangelical hermeneutic of scripture... the systematic, if you will. And so very often that sort of possibility is downplayed, in fear that it negates or undermines scriptural authority. Which is mighty strange, considering that - last I checked -scriptural authority finds its axis, again, in authorial intent. One would have assumed that far from undermining scripture, acknowleding patterns and practices otherwise unbecoming of cliched evangelical readings would enhance, challenge but ultimately develop Evangelicalism, far from hinder it.
Alas, the Evangelical hermeneutic is rarely questioned, even when the challenge comes from scripture itself
Tis a sad sight! For even God sided with the Job figure, and not with his traditionalist friends...Anyway. I'll stop waxing lyrical now, and I'll wait for BNC to pick up the linguistics.
Nathan
Well I don't think there is a matter of linguistics, given that the verse in Zechariah (yes, there are prophets other than Isaiah that talked about the Messiah! Go and read them!) reads (in the NRSV):
'...Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'
(slightly different in Matthew 21:5, as Matthew is probably quoting the Septuagint). There's no 'and' in sight. And when Matthew is clearly expanding on Mark, who has Jesus mounted simply on a colt, why else the addition of a donkey as well except to really beat the reader over the head with Zechariah? (okay, now that is a fun mental image)
As for hermeneutics in general, Nathan is spot on. I am not 'casting aspersions' on Matthew, and I rather resent the implications of that statement, brother. I believe that textual criticism is a valuable tool in discerning what the Bible is telling us about Jesus, and that God wouldn't have given me a half-worthy brain and a hefty shove in the direction of academic Theology if he intended me to sit there with my fingers in my ears. Christianity is the truth, and as such has absolutely nothing to fear from intellectual enquiry; if intellectual enquiry bids us lay down some of the false assumptions that we have accumulated around our Christianity (as I have had to do) then praise God for that.
'...Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'
(slightly different in Matthew 21:5, as Matthew is probably quoting the Septuagint). There's no 'and' in sight. And when Matthew is clearly expanding on Mark, who has Jesus mounted simply on a colt, why else the addition of a donkey as well except to really beat the reader over the head with Zechariah? (okay, now that is a fun mental image)
As for hermeneutics in general, Nathan is spot on. I am not 'casting aspersions' on Matthew, and I rather resent the implications of that statement, brother. I believe that textual criticism is a valuable tool in discerning what the Bible is telling us about Jesus, and that God wouldn't have given me a half-worthy brain and a hefty shove in the direction of academic Theology if he intended me to sit there with my fingers in my ears. Christianity is the truth, and as such has absolutely nothing to fear from intellectual enquiry; if intellectual enquiry bids us lay down some of the false assumptions that we have accumulated around our Christianity (as I have had to do) then praise God for that.
I have a few questions, because I love friendly debate with Christians who don't get stressy:
Do you, as Christians, accept that certain parts of the bible are contradictory?
Secondly, how do you reconcile the difficulty in interpreting some parts of the bible literally and completely ignoring other parts. (You'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian -- even a fundie -- who follows every word of the OT.
Thirdly, have you seen this: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=1. It's from fundies Say the Darndest Things. There used to be a top100 page which had the funniest ones, but I can't find it. Anywho, my question is: how does it make you feel to share your faith with them? Do you agree with some of them?
Fourthly, do you honestly think it's moral that salvation is faith dependant? So, a good person who gives to the poor, devotes their life to good causes, etc. but doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, while a ex-murderer who gets forgiveness goes to heaven. (Though I do like the concept of forgiveness in the Christian faith.) I know the justification is, "We all sin. Any sin hurts God irreprably, without Jesus." But is that explanation not a bit too metaphorical?
Fifthly, this one always bugs me: did everyone who died before Jesus lived/was crucified go to hell? Or did his crucifixion supply proxy salvation to alll of them (beyond space and time, yadda, yadda). If the latter, then surely the so-called 'Good News' is actually Bad News. If the messiah had come after us, then we could have got salvation without believing in Jesus!
Sixthly, can anyone give me a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil? -- you don't really have to do this one. (or any, really.)
Do you, as Christians, accept that certain parts of the bible are contradictory?
Secondly, how do you reconcile the difficulty in interpreting some parts of the bible literally and completely ignoring other parts. (You'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian -- even a fundie -- who follows every word of the OT.
Thirdly, have you seen this: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=1. It's from fundies Say the Darndest Things. There used to be a top100 page which had the funniest ones, but I can't find it. Anywho, my question is: how does it make you feel to share your faith with them? Do you agree with some of them?
Fourthly, do you honestly think it's moral that salvation is faith dependant? So, a good person who gives to the poor, devotes their life to good causes, etc. but doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, while a ex-murderer who gets forgiveness goes to heaven. (Though I do like the concept of forgiveness in the Christian faith.) I know the justification is, "We all sin. Any sin hurts God irreprably, without Jesus." But is that explanation not a bit too metaphorical?
Fifthly, this one always bugs me: did everyone who died before Jesus lived/was crucified go to hell? Or did his crucifixion supply proxy salvation to alll of them (beyond space and time, yadda, yadda). If the latter, then surely the so-called 'Good News' is actually Bad News. If the messiah had come after us, then we could have got salvation without believing in Jesus!
Well, on one hand I know there are other Christians on here who are much better able to answer these questions, but on the other hand I'm bored. Sooo...I'll try to take a whack at some of them
Sure, although it does depend on what you mean by "contradictory." (And no, I don't mean to be obnoxious with that answer). Some parts of the Bible are clearly written figuratively, and others are much more literal. Sometimes, yes, there are "contradictions" in some figurative accounts if they are taken too literally (e.g. the two different accounts of the creation of man in Genesis), and yes, sometimes small, theologically insignificant contradictions or errors (I'm thinking lists and numbers in some parts of the OT, but I'll be darned if I can find references). And sometimes they're just copyist mistakes. There's a whole thread on this topic going on here, and since others who have already posted there have already answered it much better than I can, I'll leave it at that.
The reason Christians don't follow every word of the OT and Jewish Law is because we believe that Jesus has fulfilled the Law. The OT Law served its purpose; ultimately, it was God's provision for sin before His Son came to bear, once and for all, the burden of our sin and the extent of God's wrath.
As far as literally/figuratively goes, that's a matter of context, literary style, authorial intent, and all that jazz that I really know very little about.
No, I'd never seen that. And no, I'm not a fundie. Just a plain ol' evangelical who actually does "believe in" evolution and old earth and thinks Tim LaHaye and David Noebel (for starters) need to quit writing books. Now. ASAP. Please.
I only read the first few entries on your website; that was more than enough to get a taste of what they all say. First of all, I know tons of "fundamentalists," and none of them (okay, with the exception of two or three nutcases) think like that, at least nowhere near the extreme presented there. That being said, to answer your questions, I am perfectly happy "to share my faith with them." I may thoroughly and vehemently disagree with much of their theology and I may argue with them, but in the end it's not perfect theology that saves us; it's the work of Jesus Christ the Son of God on the cross, dying in our place for our sins. No Christian is perfect, and I'm thrilled that even fundies profess belief in Christ. (On a slightly more malicious note, I also can't wait till they get to heaven and God sets 'em straight ) I can't say to what extent I agree with them because not all fundies, not even just those quoted on that website, believe exactly the same things. Also, I'm not claiming that my own theology is anywhere near perfect, either....
Also, as an aside, Mormons (LDS) actually aren't fundamentalist Christians; they're really not Christians at all, in any traditional sense of the word, though these days they do tend to self-identify as such. When you examine their theology, though, their beliefs are not at all biblical in any sense.
First of all, at the risk of being picky again, salvation isn't "faith dependent"; the biblical teaching is that it's unilaterally an act of God's grace, and not "belief" per se and of our own volition that saves us. Scripture teaches that we are all sinners and therefore fundamentally unworthy and unable to stand rightly in God's holy and righteous presence. Only through Jesus' sacrificial, redemptive, and propitiatory death and resurrection on our behalf are we made righteous in God's eyes. He bore the punishment that we deserved, and as a result we are reconciled to God.
I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphorical"?
The reality of humans' sin and separation from God is hardly metaphorical, if one accepts the biblical teachings on them--especially considering the very literal and brutal Atonement of Christ. If you don't want to argue from the position that the Bible is accurately describing sin, well, then that's getting into the "problem of evil" you said we didn't have to answer 
I've never quite understood the answer to that question either, so I'm going to let someone else answer it. The way I'd like to answer it is that God, in His omniscience, knows who believed and who didn't. (Or wouldn't, maybe.) For example, King David is described as a man after God's own heart. But really, I just don't know and I'd like to learn more
Ummm...I'll let this one pass, too... These were my thoughts on the topic a couple weeks ago, and they haven't really changed
---
Well, I'm not sure how much that actually helped, but it helped me kill about a half-hour
The Humble Mosquito
I have a few questions, because I love friendly debate with Christians who don't get stressy:
Do you, as Christians, accept that certain parts of the bible are contradictory?
Do you, as Christians, accept that certain parts of the bible are contradictory?
Sure, although it does depend on what you mean by "contradictory." (And no, I don't mean to be obnoxious with that answer). Some parts of the Bible are clearly written figuratively, and others are much more literal. Sometimes, yes, there are "contradictions" in some figurative accounts if they are taken too literally (e.g. the two different accounts of the creation of man in Genesis), and yes, sometimes small, theologically insignificant contradictions or errors (I'm thinking lists and numbers in some parts of the OT, but I'll be darned if I can find references). And sometimes they're just copyist mistakes. There's a whole thread on this topic going on here, and since others who have already posted there have already answered it much better than I can, I'll leave it at that.
The Humble Mosquito
Secondly, how do you reconcile the difficulty in interpreting some parts of the bible literally and completely ignoring other parts. (You'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian -- even a fundie -- who follows every word of the OT.
The reason Christians don't follow every word of the OT and Jewish Law is because we believe that Jesus has fulfilled the Law. The OT Law served its purpose; ultimately, it was God's provision for sin before His Son came to bear, once and for all, the burden of our sin and the extent of God's wrath.
As far as literally/figuratively goes, that's a matter of context, literary style, authorial intent, and all that jazz that I really know very little about.
The Humble Mosquito
Thirdly, have you seen this: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=1. It's from fundies Say the Darndest Things. There used to be a top100 page which had the funniest ones, but I can't find it. Anywho, my question is: how does it make you feel to share your faith with them? Do you agree with some of them?
No, I'd never seen that. And no, I'm not a fundie. Just a plain ol' evangelical who actually does "believe in" evolution and old earth and thinks Tim LaHaye and David Noebel (for starters) need to quit writing books. Now. ASAP. Please.
I only read the first few entries on your website; that was more than enough to get a taste of what they all say. First of all, I know tons of "fundamentalists," and none of them (okay, with the exception of two or three nutcases) think like that, at least nowhere near the extreme presented there. That being said, to answer your questions, I am perfectly happy "to share my faith with them." I may thoroughly and vehemently disagree with much of their theology and I may argue with them, but in the end it's not perfect theology that saves us; it's the work of Jesus Christ the Son of God on the cross, dying in our place for our sins. No Christian is perfect, and I'm thrilled that even fundies profess belief in Christ. (On a slightly more malicious note, I also can't wait till they get to heaven and God sets 'em straight
) I can't say to what extent I agree with them because not all fundies, not even just those quoted on that website, believe exactly the same things. Also, I'm not claiming that my own theology is anywhere near perfect, either....Also, as an aside, Mormons (LDS) actually aren't fundamentalist Christians; they're really not Christians at all, in any traditional sense of the word, though these days they do tend to self-identify as such. When you examine their theology, though, their beliefs are not at all biblical in any sense.
The Humble Mosquito
Fourthly, do you honestly think it's moral that salvation is faith dependant? So, a good person who gives to the poor, devotes their life to good causes, etc. but doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, while a ex-murderer who gets forgiveness goes to heaven. (Though I do like the concept of forgiveness in the Christian faith.) I know the justification is, "We all sin. Any sin hurts God irreprably, without Jesus." But is that explanation not a bit too metaphorical?
First of all, at the risk of being picky again, salvation isn't "faith dependent"; the biblical teaching is that it's unilaterally an act of God's grace, and not "belief" per se and of our own volition that saves us. Scripture teaches that we are all sinners and therefore fundamentally unworthy and unable to stand rightly in God's holy and righteous presence. Only through Jesus' sacrificial, redemptive, and propitiatory death and resurrection on our behalf are we made righteous in God's eyes. He bore the punishment that we deserved, and as a result we are reconciled to God.
I'm not sure what you mean by "metaphorical"?
The reality of humans' sin and separation from God is hardly metaphorical, if one accepts the biblical teachings on them--especially considering the very literal and brutal Atonement of Christ. If you don't want to argue from the position that the Bible is accurately describing sin, well, then that's getting into the "problem of evil" you said we didn't have to answer The Humble Mosquito
Fifthly, this one always bugs me: did everyone who died before Jesus lived/was crucified go to hell? Or did his crucifixion supply proxy salvation to alll of them (beyond space and time, yadda, yadda). If the latter, then surely the so-called 'Good News' is actually Bad News. If the messiah had come after us, then we could have got salvation without believing in Jesus!
I've never quite understood the answer to that question either, so I'm going to let someone else answer it. The way I'd like to answer it is that God, in His omniscience, knows who believed and who didn't. (Or wouldn't, maybe.) For example, King David is described as a man after God's own heart. But really, I just don't know and I'd like to learn more
The Humble MosquitoSixthly, can anyone give me a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil? -- you don't really have to do this one. (or any, really.)
Ummm...I'll let this one pass, too...
These were my thoughts on the topic a couple weeks ago, and they haven't really changed ---
Well, I'm not sure how much that actually helped, but it helped me kill about a half-hour
Has anyone read any good Christian apologetics books recently? I just read Frank Morison's "Who Moved the Stone?" and really enjoyed it. I know the main classic is C S Lewis' "Mere Christianity", and Tom Wright has written "Simply Christian", which appears to be similar in intent but more modern, but are there any other good ones?
Thanks,
Jenny
Thanks,
Jenny
The Humble Mosquito
Do you, as Christians, accept that certain parts of the bible are contradictory?
Yes. Absolutely. I am even happy to say that books of the Bible may contain different theologies and ideas of God (though 'contradictory' is not a word I would use, as it presupposes a conclusion). The beauty of Scripture is that it is the words that point us to the Word, that through living a life 'immersed' in it we may come to see Jesus Christ. It doesn't need to read like a thesis to do that.
The Humble Mosquito
Secondly, how do you reconcile the difficulty in interpreting some parts of the bible literally and completely ignoring other parts. (You'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian -- even a fundie -- who follows every word of the OT.
Well, nobody interprets the Bible 'literally'. When people say that they do, they are usually reading Scripture through one of the very thickest interpretative frameworks. I believe in interpretation through careful textual and historical study in order to discern, as far as possible, the genre of the text and the authorial intent behind it, keeping in mind always the truth of the gospel.
The Humble Mosquito
Thirdly, have you seen this: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=1. It's from fundies Say the Darndest Things. There used to be a top100 page which had the funniest ones, but I can't find it. Anywho, my question is: how does it make you feel to share your faith with them? Do you agree with some of them?
I don't have a problem with people who are undereducated, which a lot of fundamentalists are, because that's usually not their fault. If they've spent their lives with crap teachers at school and crap ministers in their church, then they can't help being ignorant of science and history and having poor theology.
What does really anger me is when you get men and women who are educated, and capable of applying their intellect in a humble and Christlike way to serve others, who instead behave 'as the rulers of the Gentiles' and keep their people in fear, ignorance and hateful behaviour which they pretend demonstrates the love of God. But as we read, 'Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says the Lord'.
The Humble Mosquito
Fourthly, do you honestly think it's moral that salvation is faith dependant? So, a good person who gives to the poor, devotes their life to good causes, etc. but doesn't believe in Jesus goes to hell, while a ex-murderer who gets forgiveness goes to heaven. (Though I do like the concept of forgiveness in the Christian faith.) I know the justification is, "We all sin. Any sin hurts God irreprably, without Jesus." But is that explanation not a bit too metaphorical?
I don't know quite what you mean by 'moral' here. It's certainly not fair, and I'm bloody glad of that, because without the grace of God that calls to me I would most certainly be well on my way in the proverbial handcart...
The Humble Mosquito
Fifthly, this one always bugs me: did everyone who died before Jesus lived/was crucified go to hell? Or did his crucifixion supply proxy salvation to alll of them (beyond space and time, yadda, yadda). If the latter, then surely the so-called 'Good News' is actually Bad News. If the messiah had come after us, then we could have got salvation without believing in Jesus!
There is a very ancient Christian belief, which is alluded to somewhat obscurely in the Bible, that on Holy Saturday (the day between Good Friday and Easter Day) Jesus descended to the realm of Sheol, the land of the dead in the Hebrew religion, and preached the good news to all those who had died before him, and offered them his grace. You may have seen some very famous paintings of him liberating Adam, Eve, David, Solomon and other OT characters from Sheol.
I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of this supposed event, but I do think that it says something important about what happened in Jesus' death and resurrection. Simply put, those who died before Jesus do have access to the grace of God.
The Humble MosquitoSixthly, can anyone give me a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil? -- you don't really have to do this one. (or any, really.)
The cross of Jesus Christ is the answer, but it can't be intellectualised, and certainly can't be explained on an internet forum. If you're interested in a theological and deeply personal response to suffering, I cannot recommend enough the book 'A Year Lost and Found' by Michael Mayne, an Anglican priest who spent a year utterly incapacitated by ME. It's a very short book, but incredibly profound and moving.
Dude, a donkey? I'm so jealous! I highly doubt my church would do anything as cool as that (I'm suddenly having visions of some staff member trying to drag a stubborn donkey through the streets of downtown...lol...)
Anyway, happy palm Sunday!
(I'm suddenly having visions of some staff member trying to drag a stubborn donkey through the streets of downtown...lol...)Anyway, happy palm Sunday!
~ Shannon
Dude, a donkey? I'm so jealous! I highly doubt my church would do anything as cool as that (I'm suddenly having visions of some staff member trying to drag a stubborn donkey through the streets of downtown...lol...)
Anyway, happy palm Sunday!
(I'm suddenly having visions of some staff member trying to drag a stubborn donkey through the streets of downtown...lol...)Anyway, happy palm Sunday!
i think it was a mule come to think of it
But it was very tame, all the kids got to say hello to it When's Easter again?
ukebert
i think it was a mule come to think of it But it was very tame, all the kids got to say hello to it
But it was very tame, all the kids got to say hello to it lol...mules are supposedly even worse!
Easter is next week (the 23rd)
I hope everyone has a 'Good' Friday today. Hehehe 
Ethelred the Unready
I hope everyone has a 'Good' Friday today. Hehehe
Inasmuch as His death gave us salvation...yes, thank you...that's why it's known as "Good" Friday.
Are you popping along to your local Christian church this afternoon, S?
"Where you there when they nailed Him to the cross?"
yawn
Inasmuch as His death gave us salvation...yes, thank you...that's why it's known as "Good" Friday.
Are you popping along to your local Christian church this afternoon, S?
"Where you there when they nailed Him to the cross?"
Are you popping along to your local Christian church this afternoon, S?
"Where you there when they nailed Him to the cross?"
Regrettably no
. I am on Sunday, however. yawn
Inasmuch as His death gave us salvation...yes, thank you...that's why it's known as "Good" Friday.
Are you popping along to your local Christian church this afternoon, S?
"Where you there when they nailed Him to the cross?"
Are you popping along to your local Christian church this afternoon, S?
"Where you there when they nailed Him to the cross?"
I attended the meditation and address part (1.5hr) of the 3 hour Good Friday service today
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Welcome to the Faith & Spirituality forum! Here are some guidelines...
- Christian society
- need help on bonhoeffer :( !!!
- Re themes paper
- atheist from muslim background dating someone in a wider secular society
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- Best Universities/Cities to meet Christian women to date?
- Re themes gcse question
- How to meet Christian women to date? (24m)
- friends
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Please can anyone mark my Jekyll and Hyde essay?
- marking an inspector calls english gcse essay
- Can someone give feedback/grade my essay as Hyde being a frightening outsider? thanks
- Macbeth essay
- Does it make me a bad person to quit volunteer work?
- English & classical studies/civilisation
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- TSR Christian Society
- Cranfield School of Management Vs. Birmingham Business School
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 6 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
