Judge makes order permanent in Episcopal schism

Jan 31, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Lake Wylie Pilot

Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein issued a permanent injunction Thursday ruling only churches that left The Episcopal Church last year may use the name the Diocese of South Carolina ...

Comments
101 - 120 of 147 Comments Last updated Feb 26, 2013
Obadiah Plainman

Columbia, SC

#103 Feb 13, 2013
Wow! I'm glad that I would not even begin to refer to myself as a Reverend. Benjamin Franklin wrote a funny tiarade against the pompitude of the clergy of his day, it would seem that it has proven itself timeless and in this instance timely!

Franklin was not afraid to go against popular beliefs if he thought they were ill advised. Although censure and backbiting were condemned by the divines and writers of morality in all ages, he wrote an essay defending censure as a helpful virtue. He argued that the practice of censuring frequently prevents powerful and ill-designing politicians from "growing too popular for the safety of the state." The common use of censure also deters the actions of private persons, who often strengthen their weak resolution by asking themselves what people will say.

What will the world say of me, if I act thus?
is often a reflection strong enough to enable us
to resist the most powerful temptation to vice or folly.
This preserves the integrity of the wavering,
the honesty of the covetous,
the sanctity of some of the religious,
and the chastity of all virgins.11

If people disregard censure, they become impudent and may have contempt for all laws, human and divine. The practice of censuring helps people to know themselves better. Friends are rarely sincere or rash enough to tell us about our faults. Only enemies tell us what we have done wrong to our faces; but most people refuse to believe an enemy, because they assume they are speaking out of ill will. From backbiting neighbors we may eventually hear what has been said about us but never to us because people are more willing to tell us what others are saying about us. Backbiting also helps people to understand the darker side of humanity. Franklin argued that nothing could be more pernicious than a law against backbiting because it would provide the greatest encouragement to vice.

http://www.san.beck.org/11-11-FranklinsEthics...

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#104 Feb 13, 2013
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly little man, Jesus is the word of God. Therefore all scriptue is of and from Jesus.
How long will you be ignorant fool?
I know, God made you for the day of damnation. I guess he needed you for the kindling! Lol Wrongway!
Phil,

Putting your (in my opinion) useless and baseless insults aside for the moment,

Question:

According to the dictionary (using two well-known, one unabridged, dictionaries), the definition of scripture or Holy Scripture is, in addition to the Bible, any sacred writing or text. Does this dictionary definition meet with your approval?

The Jews variously approve of and use some "Old Testament" period texts that the Christian canonical texts do not include. They do regard these as Holy Scriptures. Alternatively, after much wrangling, the Western and Eastern Churches pretty much settled their selection of canonical texts, that many today recognize to be our modern Bible, by the middle of the 5th Century. Although, there are still some differences held to be scripture by some and not others, among Christians.

In your opinion, are there any Holy Scriptures that are not today included in the canonized list of texts that are recognized as the King James Bible? If so, which texts do those of your Schooling include or remove from the KJV?

I understand that you may regard such questions from me as leading toward some kind of trap. Please understand the basis for my questions. If your Schooling definition of scripture or Holy Scripture is the same as mine, then that would establish an area of agreement.

If, on the other hand, you specifically limit the definition of scripture to be precisely one canonical list of texts and furthermore, one translation of those texts and, with all due respect, my understanding of that definition or that list is somehow different from yours, then I will have a better understanding of an area of disagreement between us.

Nothing more, nothing less. And if there is an area of disagreement, I will, at least initially, refrain from accusing you of being any "spawn of the Devil," believing that a bit of humor injected into the conversation might be better than further polarization.

Ken

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#105 Feb 14, 2013
Obadiah Plainman wrote:
Wow! I'm glad that I would not even begin to refer to myself as a Reverend. Benjamin Franklin wrote a funny tiarade against the pompitude of the clergy of his day, it would seem that it has proven itself timeless and in this instance timely!
Franklin was not afraid to go against popular beliefs if he thought they were ill advised. Although censure and backbiting were condemned by the divines and writers of morality in all ages, he wrote an essay defending censure as a helpful virtue. He argued that the practice of censuring frequently prevents powerful and ill-designing politicians from "growing too popular for the safety of the state." The common use of censure also deters the actions of private persons, who often strengthen their weak resolution by asking themselves what people will say.
What will the world say of me, if I act thus?
is often a reflection strong enough to enable us
to resist the most powerful temptation to vice or folly.
This preserves the integrity of the wavering,
the honesty of the covetous,
the sanctity of some of the religious,
and the chastity of all virgins.11
If people disregard censure, they become impudent and may have contempt for all laws, human and divine. The practice of censuring helps people to know themselves better. Friends are rarely sincere or rash enough to tell us about our faults. Only enemies tell us what we have done wrong to our faces; but most people refuse to believe an enemy, because they assume they are speaking out of ill will. From backbiting neighbors we may eventually hear what has been said about us but never to us because people are more willing to tell us what others are saying about us. Backbiting also helps people to understand the darker side of humanity. Franklin argued that nothing could be more pernicious than a law against backbiting because it would provide the greatest encouragement to vice.
http://www.san.beck.org/11-11-FranklinsEthics...
WOOHOO Cheesecake has another screen name!

Now, if some one could let him know it's 2013!

LOL....
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

#106 Feb 14, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Phil,
Question:
According to the dictionary (using two well-known, one unabridged, dictionaries), the definition of scripture or Holy Scripture is, in addition to the Bible, any sacred writing or text. Does this dictionary definition meet with your approval?
The Jews variously approve of and use some "Old Testament" period texts that the Christian canonical texts do not include. They do regard these as Holy Scriptures. Alternatively, after much wrangling, the Western and Eastern Churches pretty much settled their selection of canonical texts, that many today recognize to be our modern Bible, by the middle of the 5th Century. Although, there are still some differences held to be scripture by some and not others, among Christians.
In your opinion, are there any Holy Scriptures that are not today included in the canonized list of texts that are recognized as the King James Bible? If so, which texts do those of your Schooling include or remove from the KJV?
I understand that you may regard such questions from me as leading toward some kind of trap. Please understand the basis for my questions. If your Schooling definition of scripture or Holy Scripture is the same as mine, then that would establish an area of agreement.
If, on the other hand, you specifically limit the definition of scripture to be precisely one canonical list of texts and furthermore, one translation of those texts and, with all due respect, my understanding of that definition or that list is somehow different from yours, then I will have a better understanding of an area of disagreement between us.
Nothing more, nothing less. And if there is an area of disagreement, I will, at least initially, refrain from accusing you of being any "spawn of the Devil," believing that a bit of humor injected into the conversation might be better than further polarization.
Ken
Great Question.

I believe that all "true scripture" is as the Apostle Paul described to Timothy in,

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

God has given us the inspired Bible so that we will be able to accurately know that which is good, true, and holy. So that we might know the mind and will of God. So that we might Teach, Correct, Rebuke, and Train in Righteousness...[as you have been the recipient thereof from me] and this so that our work might be good in the sight of God.

The Books of the Old Testament mentions chronicles which are not included in the KJV. The one that first comes to mind is "The Book of Nathan." Does this mean that we do not have the complete word of God. NO!

God as the great editor of his word provided us with the knowledges of him and what is required for us to "walk in his ways" and attain to salvation.

The most earthly thing I can compare this to is the forward Stephen King described in his unedited version of the Stand. He said that the end would not change nor would the new additions show characters acting in different ways. His unedited version was merely "more of the same."

I hope this answers your thoughtful question, but if not, would entertain further discussion along these lines. The fallacy I see and this blog is a prime example of my point is that when HOMOSEXUALS see scriptures that are condemning of their lifestyle they reject it, scoff and mock, to their own damnation.

The Spirit of God does not enable sin or pave a pathway for God to come to us as sinners. He does give us a road map of how we are to come to an understanding of him, his will, and his salvation. If that direction is rejected then so will be those who reject the Word.

Phil

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#107 Feb 15, 2013
"The Books of the Old Testament mentions chronicles which are not included in the KJV. The one that first comes to mind is "The Book of Nathan." Does this mean that we do not have the complete word of God. NO!"

Well, yes it does. You have a crappy version if you are reading Queen James. This book is the most revised, condensed, modernized, paraphrased, rewritten book on the planet and yet we have older version containing richness and wisdom that the romans found too dangerous for the laity to have and understand.

LOL!

That's a shame, you should get a complete Jewish Bible, it included the New Testament.

Of, get a Syrian Bible, written in Aramaic and never changed.

OR you could read the books mentioned in the OT, such as the Book of Enoch.

God gives us plenty of opportunity to know Him, especially in PERSON!

If someone comes to visit you or you go to visit someone do you sit there reading old letters or do you converse?

God is alive! I pray some day you realize that, we'll all know by the change in your attitude....
Mark Lawrence

Columbia, SC

#108 Feb 15, 2013
MiddleWay wrote:
"The Books of the Old Testament mentions chronicles which are not included in the KJV. The one that first comes to mind is "The Book of Nathan." Does this mean that we do not have the complete word of God. NO!"
Well, yes it does. You have a crappy version if you are reading Queen James. This book is the most revised, condensed, modernized, paraphrased, rewritten book on the planet and yet we have older version containing richness and wisdom that the romans found too dangerous for the laity to have and understand.
LOL!
That's a shame, you should get a complete Jewish Bible, it included the New Testament.
Of, get a Syrian Bible, written in Aramaic and never changed.
OR you could read the books mentioned in the OT, such as the Book of Enoch.
God gives us plenty of opportunity to know Him, especially in PERSON!
If someone comes to visit you or you go to visit someone do you sit there reading old letters or do you converse?
God is alive! I pray some day you realize that, we'll all know by the change in your attitude....
You are a total and complete idiot overcome by your own sin. It is incredible how anyone could be so completely devoid of understand, reasoning and logic, but as the saying goes, there is always one. Your hometown is calling, they need their village idiot back. Have a nice trip. I have noticed and will point out again that you have completely missed the joke being played on you. But your the "village idiot." LOL! What a clown.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#109 Feb 16, 2013
Mark Lawrence wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a total and complete idiot overcome by your own sin. It is incredible how anyone could be so completely devoid of understand, reasoning and logic, but as the saying goes, there is always one. Your hometown is calling, they need their village idiot back. Have a nice trip. I have noticed and will point out again that you have completely missed the joke being played on you. But your the "village idiot." LOL! What a clown.
What?

LOL!
Ozymandias

Columbia, SC

#110 Feb 16, 2013
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
LOL!
The fool has one great advantage over a man of sense he is always satisfied with himself.

Napolon Bonaparte

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

Euripides

Your comments are the running joke of this thread! Wait another 20 years before you post again. Perhaps, you will not be so ignorant or full of conceit!

Who's laughing now?

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#111 Feb 16, 2013
Ozymandias wrote:
<quoted text>
The fool has one great advantage over a man of sense he is always satisfied with himself.
Napolon Bonaparte
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
Euripides
Your comments are the running joke of this thread! Wait another 20 years before you post again. Perhaps, you will not be so ignorant or full of conceit!
Who's laughing now?
Love another as I have loved you - Jesus

TRUMP!

LOL.....
Mark Lawrence

Columbia, SC

#112 Feb 16, 2013
WrongWay wrote:
<quoted text>
Love another as I have loved you - Jesus
TRUMP!
LOL.....
So by your logic, Jesus participated in homosexual acts? Homosexual acts are that of self-abuse and lust, not love as presented in the scripture.

You must have some latient Homosexual tendencies which color and cloud your thinking on this topic.

Sure, Jesus died for men who have been trapped into the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle, but in return for the frogiveness of those sins, repentence and rejection of HOMOSEXUAL SELF-ABUSE is the cost of admission.

Jesus did not call Christian to come and live in their sins. Just as the woman taken before Jesus for adultery, Jesus covered her sins with the caveat, "go and sin no more."

It is merely stunning while simultaneously disheartening how that your spiritual undertanding and foundation is corrupted and rejecting of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.

Repent but if you refuse, your blood be "upon your own head."

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#113 Feb 16, 2013
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
Great Question.
I believe that all "true scripture" is as the Apostle Paul described to Timothy in,
2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
God has given us the inspired Bible so that we will be able to accurately know that which is good, true, and holy. So that we might know the mind and will of God....

The Books of the Old Testament mentions chronicles which are not included in the KJV. The one that first comes to mind is "The Book of Nathan." Does this mean that we do not have the complete word of God. NO!

... He does give us a road map of how we are to come to an understanding of him, his will, and his salvation. If that direction is rejected then so will be those who reject the Word.
Phil
OK, Phil,

Thanks for your reply. You answered part of my question.

I'll be more specific. I'll number the parts of the question and, if you would, please, try to see how I am looking at these things by understanding my questions. Then, please, be specific.

You replied with a quote by (from scripture) Paul's second Letter to Timothy. The quote is, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for ..."

At the time this personal Letter from Paul to Timothy was written, by most scholarly accounts to have been around the latter stage of Paul's ministry prior to his death in about 65 A.D., much of the the New Testament had not yet been written and the canon of the bible was still hundreds of years from being established.

Many Gospels were being circulated. In addition, there were many "Old Testament" texts that were a part of the Hebrew scriptures that were much later dropped or not included in what you regard to be the finished bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts found in about a dozen caves near Qumran, in the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea. Analysis of the handwriting, palaeography, was applied to the text on the Dead Sea Scrolls by a variety of scholars. Major linguistic analysis dates fragments from 225 BCE to 50 CE. These dates were determined by examining the size, variability, and style of the text. The same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon date testing and were dated to an estimated range of 385 BCE to 82 CE. Such dating is regarded to be pretty good at about a 68% accuracy rate.
(I pulled this reference to the analysis from Wikipedia under 'Dead Sea Scrolls.')

The most recent theory of the origin of these Qumran texts is that the community of people that wrote and transcribed them were Sadducees or, possibly Essene. However, at the time they were preserved, about 60 A. D., the same time around which Paul wrote to Timothy, a large part of these texts were considered to be Holy Scriptures and some of the 972 texts would have been the very scriptures to which Paul had made reference.

My question #1 to you, in the context of your Schooling:

From the list of texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which texts were the ones that Paul regarded to be "God-breathed?"

You may provide the list as a reference to or from any of your approved sources.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#114 Feb 16, 2013
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
Great Question.
I believe that all "true scripture" is as the Apostle Paul described to Timothy in,
2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
God has given us the inspired Bible so that we will be able to accurately know that which is good, true, and holy. So that we might know the mind and will of God. So that we might Teach, Correct, Rebuke, and Train in Righteousness...[as you have been the recipient thereof from me] and this so that our work might be good in the sight of God.
The Books of the Old Testament mentions chronicles which are not included in the KJV. The one that first comes to mind is "The Book of Nathan." Does this mean that we do not have the complete word of God. NO!
God as the great editor of his word provided us with the knowledges of him and what is required for us to "walk in his ways" and attain to salvation.
The most earthly thing I can compare this to is the forward Stephen King described in his unedited version of the Stand. He said that the end would not change nor would the new additions show characters acting in different ways. His unedited version was merely "more of the same."
I hope this answers your thoughtful question, but if not, would entertain further discussion along these lines. The fallacy I see and this blog is a prime example of my point is that when HOMOSEXUALS see scriptures that are condemning of their lifestyle they reject it, scoff and mock, to their own damnation.
The Spirit of God does not enable sin or pave a pathway for God to come to us as sinners. He does give us a road map of how we are to come to an understanding of him, his will, and his salvation. If that direction is rejected then so will be those who reject the Word.
Phil
OK, Phil,

I asked you about the acceptability of the texts of the KJV bible, in order to establish a frame of reference between us.

You did not answer with the specificity that I need to understand your position in the matter of determining what is or what is not to be regarded as Holy Scripture.

So, please answer my question #2:

Which version or versions of the Bible does your Schooling allow to be regarded as Holy Scripture?

Ken
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

#115 Feb 16, 2013
The pompousness of self-appointed ordination reeks through your volumous efforts to appear "learned." Your pride precludes your understanding.

I am not tempted by my pride as you apparently are to enter into discussions of "fables and endless genelogies" which Paul warns to do so is foolish. I would concur.

I Tim 1 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 5Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: 6From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; 7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

The Christians of his time understood what was required for Salvaton. Belief, Repentence, Confession, Baptism, and abhorance of all sin and faithfulness unto death. This was and is the hallmark of a true Christian.

There are countless avenues for you to acertain the development of the translations both pro and con.

John mentioned that there were false gospels and that Christians were to "try the spirits" to see if they were false or real.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Don't confuse yourself by your own prejudiced assumptions and indoctrination regarding the Holy Scripture. I know, I won't.

Phil (NOTICE) not Reverend Phil,

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#116 Feb 16, 2013
Phil McGroen wrote:
The pompousness of self-appointed ordination reeks through your volumous efforts to appear "learned." Your pride precludes your understanding.
I am not tempted by my pride as you apparently are to enter into discussions of "fables and endless genelogies" which Paul warns to do so is foolish. I would concur.
I Tim 1 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,...

...

The Christians of his time understood what was required for Salvaton. Belief, Repentence, Confession, Baptism, and abhorance of all sin and faithfulness unto death. This was and is the hallmark of a true Christian.

There are countless avenues for you to acertain the development of the translations both pro and con.

John mentioned that there were false gospels and that Christians were to "try the spirits" to see if they were false or real.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Don't confuse yourself by your own prejudiced assumptions and indoctrination regarding the Holy Scripture. I know, I won't.

Phil (NOTICE) not Reverend Phil,
Do you mean that I am not to be confused by my prejudiced assumptions or that you are not to be confused by your own prejudiced assumptions?

Here is the quote you gave, Phil:

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Above, you now say that there are " ... countless avenues for you to a[s]certain the development of the translations both pro and con." Sounds like confusion on YOUR part.

Well,... if there really are avenues to ascertain, why don't you admit that there are Holy Scriptures that are NOT in the canonical bible?

???

I simply asked you to identify scripture within the Dead Sea Scrolls that either is or is not regarded, by you, under your study of scripture, to be Holy Scripture, "God-breathed."

Doesn't appear that you will do that. There are only two possibilities why.

One is that you really don't know which texts Paul regarded as "God-breathed" so that you cannot do this.

Or, alternatively, you recognize a list by Paul, or by your teachers or on your own, that there are Holy Scriptures that exist within the body of the Dead Sea Scroll texts that actually are Holy Scripture, but are not included in the canonized biblical texts. If so, your refusal to admit it is both a lack of faith and study on your part. It is obvious that you've just never read the material.

To be fair, it is widely understood among Jewish scholars that many of these texts are to be regarded as Holy Scripture, even though they are not necessarily to be found in some versions of the bible. But, better you should say this than me.

If it is the latter, I concur and we are in agreement on this one point.

If it is the former, you are full of the same baseless, bombastic pomposity that you think is MY claim to fame.

I accuse you of neither - but of one or the other it is a certainty.

Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#117 Feb 17, 2013
Mark Lawrence wrote:
<quoted text>
So by your logic, Jesus participated in homosexual acts? Homosexual acts are that of self-abuse and lust, not love as presented in the scripture.
You must have some latient Homosexual tendencies which color and cloud your thinking on this topic.
Sure, Jesus died for men who have been trapped into the HOMOSEXUAL lifestyle, but in return for the frogiveness of those sins, repentence and rejection of HOMOSEXUAL SELF-ABUSE is the cost of admission.
Jesus did not call Christian to come and live in their sins. Just as the woman taken before Jesus for adultery, Jesus covered her sins with the caveat, "go and sin no more."
It is merely stunning while simultaneously disheartening how that your spiritual undertanding and foundation is corrupted and rejecting of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples.
Repent but if you refuse, your blood be "upon your own head."
You really don't know the difference between sex and love, do you?

Did Jesus say have sex with one another?

LMAO!

No wonder you have trouble understand Scripture!

Pervert.....
Stan Upright

Columbia, SC

#118 Feb 17, 2013
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
WOOHOO Cheesecake has another screen name!
Now, if some one could let him know it's 2013!
LOL....
Obviously your preception skills are once again "on the skids!" Whew, that's a twofur! LOL Slackjaw

XOXO!
Stan Upright

Columbia, SC

#119 Feb 17, 2013
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't know the difference between sex and love, do you?
Did Jesus say have sex with one another?
LMAO!
No wonder you have trouble understand Scripture!
Pervert.....
I bet your mother wishes "birth control" was retroactive. Face it, you are a latient HOMOSEXUAL SODOMITE, looking for a home.

Why don't you take the moniker, "Ben Dover" LOL! You got sucked into that one.

Bring it on, I can make pithy snide jokes about HOMOSEXUALS and those who wish they were HOMOSEXUALS ALL DAY LONG.

Hey, whipe that *hit off your mouth, you are drooling. LOL!
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

#120 Feb 17, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean that I am not to be confused by my prejudiced assumptions or that you are not to be confused by your own prejudiced assumptions?
Here is the quote you gave, Phil:
2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Above, you now say that there are " ... countless avenues for you to a[s]certain the development of the translations both pro and con." Sounds like confusion on YOUR part.
Well,... if there really are avenues to ascertain, why don't you admit that there are Holy Scriptures that are NOT in the canonical bible?
???
I simply asked you to identify scripture within the Dead Sea Scrolls that either is or is not regarded, by you, under your study of scripture, to be Holy Scripture, "God-breathed."
Doesn't appear that you will do that. There are only two possibilities why.
One is that you really don't know which texts Paul regarded as "God-breathed" so that you cannot do this.
Or, alternatively, you recognize a list by Paul, or by your teachers or on your own, that there are Holy Scriptures that exist within the body of the Dead Sea Scroll texts that actually are Holy Scripture, but are not included in the canonized biblical texts. If so, your refusal to admit it is both a lack of faith and study on your part. It is obvious that you've just never read the material.
To be fair, it is widely understood among Jewish scholars that many of these texts are to be regarded as Holy Scripture, even though they are not necessarily to be found in some versions of the bible. But, better you should say this than me.
If it is the latter, I concur and we are in agreement on this one point.
If it is the former, you are full of the same baseless, bombastic pomposity that you think is MY claim to fame.
I accuse you of neither - but of one or the other it is a certainty.
Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.
Reverend Flatulence,

You were so long winded in your inquiry I would have never come to the conclusion and the point of your question.

When you preach or ramble, which ever it is, are you constantly looking in the mirror too?

You are asking me to tell you which scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls are legitimate? Is that what you are asking.

It appears from your blathering that you teachers have confused you with as they say in the Corp. "bravo sierra."

Is this your only question or does it have equally other rambling disjointed conclusions based on assumption posed by other assumptions?

Simply put, cut to the chase! I'll entertain three questions which are logical, not speclative, gramatically correct so as to not be vague or misleading and are pointed toward some conclusion, not merely more "confusion." You have had a real hard time as your pompous attitude seems to fog your reasoning.

Don't merely repaste my entire comments unless you need the citation to stay on task. Even if you don't at least try to appear that you have some level of understanding and not merely blind contradiction.

Phil, a slave of Jesus Christ,
Phil McGroen

Columbia, SC

#121 Feb 17, 2013
Phil McGroen wrote:
<quoted text>
Reverend Flatulence,
Phil, a slave of Jesus Christ,
Reverend Flatulence,

Q1: You're not assuming that all of the Dead Sea scrolls are "Holy Writ" are you?

Q2: If I suffer your inquiry for a limited time, will you agree to accept the book of Leviticus [both KJV and DSS versions]as valid and having standing in our discussion?

Q3: Will you recognize that Jesus did not abbrogate, revise or dispense with the Law of Moses but he 1)fulfilled the law, 2)recognized it as binding and 3) that Jesus raised the bar on sin i.e. OT you physically had to commit some act while under the NT just the mere thought constituted sin.

Here is the gist of my questions. It would seem that you are trying to discover some inconsistency between the scripture. Some of the works of Hebrew Antiquity were well known to Jesus, for instance the Book of Macabees et.al however, he did not recognize them as "Holy" nor did he refer to then. I dont want the efforts of my patience with this inquiry to be wasted on mere contradiction an confusion from others not familiar with the scriptures.

Phil, a slave of Jesus the Christ! Okay, I like Paul but it's not plagerism! LOL!
RainbowSkidsRigh teousTwin

Columbia, SC

#122 Feb 17, 2013
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't know the difference between sex and love, do you?
Did Jesus say have sex with one another?
LMAO!
No wonder you have trouble understand Scripture!
Pervert.....
QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Summerville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Southeastern Property And Equity Manage... 19 hr Criminal Slumlords 2
Debate: Ferguson - Charleston, SC Wed anonymous does good 8
SC SC state senator refers to candidate as 'raghead' (Jun '10) Wed NEWORLDORDERPLAN2... 1,148
Special Report part 4: The violence at home Aug 23 concerned 1
Investigation continues into Myrtle Beach Memor... Aug 22 I ALREADY TOLD YO... 12
S.C. education department out of the loop in wr... Aug 22 MikeF 4
HistoryMakers oral history archive more than ha... Aug 22 paddyomalley 1
•••
•••
•••

Summerville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Summerville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Summerville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Summerville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••