Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.
I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?
That's rich.
As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.
You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.
Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.
I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.
Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.
I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.
LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.
You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?
All righty then.
Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”
Jesus never changed the dietary laws.
Christians don’t keep kosher.
Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'
But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.
Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.
? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.
sorry, due to
Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.
You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus
You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.
I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?
Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.
Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”
Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.
Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.
Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.
Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.
“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
Darned if I know. We obey God’s commands because they’re God’s commands. We don’t ask God why He gave the commands.
Don’t ask questions.
- man behind green curtain
By comparing God to Oz you’re apparently implying that there is no God. That’s a possibility. In the immortal words of John Knowles, “always pray, for it may turn out there really is a God.” If we obey the laws and it turns out there’s no God, we lose nothing. If it turns out there is a God we win everything. My Christian friends call this “Pascal’s Wager.”
Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.
I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?
That's rich.
As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.
You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.
Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.
I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.
Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.
I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.
LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.
You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?
All righty then.
Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”
Jesus never changed the dietary laws.
Christians don’t keep kosher.
Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'
But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.
Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.
? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.
sorry, due to
Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.
You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus
You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.
I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?
Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.
Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”
Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.
Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.
Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.
Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.
“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
Darned if I know. We obey God’s commands because they’re God’s commands. We don’t ask God why He gave the commands.
Don’t ask questions.
- man behind green curtain
By comparing God to Oz you’re apparently implying that there is no God. That’s a possibility. In the immortal words of John Knowles, “always pray, for it may turn out there really is a God.” If we obey the laws and it turns out there’s no God, we lose nothing. If it turns out there is a God we win everything. My Christian friends call this “Pascal’s Wager.”
Wow. That’s a really compelling argument - “do it just in case god exists”. Lol
Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.
I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?
That's rich.
As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.
You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.
Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.
I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.
Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.
I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.
LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.
You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?
All righty then.
Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”
Jesus never changed the dietary laws.
Christians don’t keep kosher.
Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'
But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.
Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.
? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.
sorry, due to
Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.
You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus
You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.
I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?
Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.
Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”
Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.
Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.
Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.
Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.
“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.
Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?
well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.
Trichinosis was never the point. The kosher laws aren’t about health. Rabbits aren’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Lobster isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health. Having a meal with both milk and meat isn’t kosher, nothing to do with health.
What is the point, then?
Ask God. The kosher laws are the kosher laws because we believe God told us what we can and cannot eat. The kosher laws tell us to remove all blood from meat. Nothing to do with health. We obey God’s commands. We don’t ask why He gave the commands.
Fine, but you don't think these commands were just random do you? Or do you?
Darned if I know. We obey God’s commands because they’re God’s commands. We don’t ask God why He gave the commands.
Don’t ask questions.
- man behind green curtain
By comparing God to Oz you’re apparently implying that there is no God. That’s a possibility. In the immortal words of John Knowles, “always pray, for it may turn out there really is a God.” If we obey the laws and it turns out there’s no God, we lose nothing. If it turns out there is a God we win everything. My Christian friends call this “Pascal’s Wager.”
Wow. That’s a really compelling argument - “do it just in case god exists”. Lol
“Hear this, O foolish people, and without understanding. Who have eyes and see not, who have ears and hear not.” Jeremiah 5:21.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
No, such a simplistic argument to be meaningless. Are you going to ask next how many angels can dance on the head of pin or can God make a rock so big he can't move it?
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
No, such a simplistic argument to be meaningless. Are you going to ask next how many angels can dance on the head of pin or can God make a rock so big he can't move it?
No those points are nothing like the one referenced above. The point made above is very simple, and very difficult to deny, as proved by this entire thread. If it could be you would have done so.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
No, such a simplistic argument to be meaningless. Are you going to ask next how many angels can dance on the head of pin or can God make a rock so big he can't move it?
No those points are nothing like the one referenced above. The point made above is very simple, and very difficult to deny, as proved by this entire thread. If it could be you would have done so.
Here's a similar point: if God exists, God helps people. Helping is good. Therefore, God is good.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
No, such a simplistic argument to be meaningless. Are you going to ask next how many angels can dance on the head of pin or can God make a rock so big he can't move it?
No those points are nothing like the one referenced above. The point made above is very simple, and very difficult to deny, as proved by this entire thread. If it could be you would have done so.
Here's a similar point: if God exists, God helps people. Helping is good. Therefore, God is good.
Well he helped a certain people. Others he killed.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
No, such a simplistic argument to be meaningless. Are you going to ask next how many angels can dance on the head of pin or can God make a rock so big he can't move it?
No those points are nothing like the one referenced above. The point made above is very simple, and very difficult to deny, as proved by this entire thread. If it could be you would have done so.
Here's a similar point: if God exists, God helps people. Helping is good. Therefore, God is good.
Anonymous wrote:Oh look, atheists hijacked thread #3,426 to turn it into “why I’m an atheist” and about themselves.
Atheists started the thread. The logic is, if God exists, God kills people. Killing is evil. Therefore, God is evil. This is a vapid Sunday school argument made by children.
You mean simple and true enough to be understood by children.
No, such a simplistic argument to be meaningless. Are you going to ask next how many angels can dance on the head of pin or can God make a rock so big he can't move it?
No those points are nothing like the one referenced above. The point made above is very simple, and very difficult to deny, as proved by this entire thread. If it could be you would have done so.
Yes, they are. Some questions cannot be answered because we don't have enough information.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
