Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Feb 13, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Q-Notes

President Barack Obama with Rev. Billy Graham at his house in Montreat, N.C., April 25, 2010.

Comments (Page 38)

Showing posts 741 - 760 of1,638
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#756
Mar 26, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Here it is AGAIN Barry. Anyone wanna take bets on how much longer he will run and cower from this?
<quoted text>
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Where was Mary and Joe's house when Jesus was born?
How many Women went to Jesus' tomb?
How did Judas die?
Did Jesus' family flee to egypt?
What did John the Baptist say to Jesus when he baptized him?
Was John even there or in prison already?
I could go on and on with these. Bottom line, to each of those questions the answer is... depends on what gospel you read.
So there you have it, 6 errors right off the top of my head without even trying.

you ask some questions, ok, where are the contradictions, you fail to show exactly what you perceive to be the contradiction.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#757
Mar 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so really you have no examples no evidence of your claim? oh, forgive me you made a n accusation so therefore it must be true. how academically lame is that. no wonder you doubt that God exists.
You seriously are that uninformed about your own cults' bible? won't it be a tad embarrassing for me to have to gide you through your own cult book?

why don't you know the gospels? isn't that something a good baptist should know? were you taught poorly?(ducation IS the death knell of cults...)
Thinking

Leeds, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#758
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

judas was entrapped by jesus as this 1990s BBC documentary proves in just three minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch...
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you didn't say that. i said it. hope that helps.
gubbub

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#759
Mar 26, 2013
 
youtube.com/watch...
Billy is silly no a valuable story

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#760
Mar 26, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>first of all your example of the women and the stoning is flawed. the law was not followed in that case. apparently there wasn't anyone there without sin and there was more to the case then a simple attempt to execute the law. all of the accusers left. none were willing to make the case. so what was your point again? there is no contradiction if you actually spend time and study the word of God and think logically.
No it is not flawed it was jesus that stopped the stoning by asking if there was any one with out sin, the old laws don't say any thing like that! If God was the source of these laws then the rules on who can punish would not have changed. That is the contradiction and that is why the good book is on my side, and thats why atheist are more likely to know more about religion than you... http://www.youtube.com/watch... http://www.youtube.com/watch...
"I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people. Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists." Dave Silverman president of American Atheists, I can't think of any who put it better...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#761
Mar 26, 2013
 
Where did I say Judas was fat? I said the writers of the bible were fat sweaty rich Romans who barely understood the language of the street people talking about Jesus.

Judas was a Jew not a roman. I see you hallucinate as well as not understand the bible.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you didn't say that. i said it. hope that helps.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#762
Mar 27, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>You seriously are that uninformed about your own cults' bible? won't it be a tad embarrassing for me to have to gide you through your own cult book?
why don't you know the gospels? isn't that something a good baptist should know? were you taught poorly?(ducation IS the death knell of cults...)
so guide me. i could use the "ducaction"
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#763
Mar 27, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Where did I say Judas was fat? I said the writers of the bible were fat sweaty rich Romans who barely understood the language of the street people talking about Jesus.
Judas was a Jew not a roman. I see you hallucinate as well as not understand the bible.
<quoted text>
how can we have a conversation when you can't even remember that you never said that judas was fat, and i never accused you of saying judas was fat? i was the one who said that judas was fat.

now how about a little evidence that might suggest that "the writers of the bible were fat sweaty rich Romans".

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#764
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>so guide me. i could use the "ducaction"
let's talk tutorial fees first...
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#765
Mar 27, 2013
 
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not flawed it was jesus that stopped the stoning by asking if there was any one with out sin, the old laws don't say any thing like that! If God was the source of these laws then the rules on who can punish would not have changed. That is the contradiction and that is why the good book is on my side, and thats why atheist are more likely to know more about religion than you... http://www.youtube.com/watch... http://www.youtube.com/watch...
"I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people. Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists." Dave Silverman president of American Atheists, I can't think of any who put it better...
First of all, they didn't need Jesus's approval to stone her so he didn't stop anything. in fact he told them to go ahead if they could. but they couldn't.
second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24) if she was "taken in adultery" where was the man involved? no man, no case.
third of all, do you even have a clue why Jesus wrote in the dirt?
this was the final embarrassment to their "case" and so they left.
so since you obviously didn't know these things, then we can understand your confusion about a wishful perception of a contradiction that really is a creative invention of those who just want an excuse to reject the Bible.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#766
Mar 27, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>let's talk tutorial fees first...
ok, that's funny. you're alright, sort of.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#767
Mar 27, 2013
 
Roman scribes were the first ones to document the stories of the street preachers who were the early Christians.

This is acknowledged by even many fundamentalist Christians!

You must really be very poorly educated on the subject. Just as you probably think Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus! Which it didn't until the second century. You probably think the Pharisees existed at his time when they actually didn't exist until after the fall of the temple in 70AD!

Lol!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>how can we have a conversation when you can't even remember that you never said that judas was fat, and i never accused you of saying judas was fat? i was the one who said that judas was fat.

now how about a little evidence that might suggest that "the writers of the bible were fat sweaty rich Romans".

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#768
Mar 27, 2013
 
That story doesn't appear in the bible until the year 1100AD.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, they didn't need Jesus's approval to stone her so he didn't stop anything. in fact he told them to go ahead if they could. but they couldn't.
second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24) if she was "taken in adultery" where was the man involved? no man, no case.
third of all, do you even have a clue why Jesus wrote in the dirt?
this was the final embarrassment to their "case" and so they left.
so since you obviously didn't know these things, then we can understand your confusion about a wishful perception of a contradiction that really is a creative invention of those who just want an excuse to reject the Bible.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#769
Mar 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, that's funny. you're alright, sort of.
and i enjoy chatting with you. you seem very intelligent, which i admire.

now..back to calling each other ignorant fools...

:)

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#770
Mar 27, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, they didn't need Jesus's approval to stone her so he didn't stop anything. in fact he told them to go ahead if they could. but they couldn't.
second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24) if she was "taken in adultery" where was the man involved? no man, no case.
third of all, do you even have a clue why Jesus wrote in the dirt?
this was the final embarrassment to their "case" and so they left.
so since you obviously didn't know these things, then we can understand your confusion about a wishful perception of a contradiction that really is a creative invention of those who just want an excuse to reject the Bible.
Jesus set criteria that was not present in the old laws thus stopping the stoning, so yes Jesus did ask them to seek his approval.

Sorry but Leviticus and Deuteronomy are in the Old Testament, the stoning incident we on arguing about is in John 7:53 to 8:11 which is in the New Testament. I don’t know why I had to spell that out… any way let’s read it because you “obviously didn't know these things” because you referred to the Old Testament! http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus,“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”” Where was the man? There he is, it say’s they found them doing it with each other! They know where he was, someone is removing parts of the story.

“They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.” So yes they were trying to trick Jesus but this isn’t relevant! We want to know if Jesus over turned old laws and made a contradiction.
““Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.” Here Jesus is adding new criteria not present in the old laws… like I said he did.

"At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her,“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.“Go now and leave your life of sin.”"
Read “Then neither do I condemn you” part and go back to “In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women”. Here I have spelled it out.

And how do you know the word Jesus was writing was the final embarrassment it doesn’t say what he was writing! I know this may not be relevant but this is the second time I found you changing the story! So I have to ask our readers is barry or the people who feed his arguments to him changing the story for their own ends, are they changing the facts to reach the wanted conclusion? I have to say yes, so the failed attempts at this are now relevant, someone has been lying for Jesus!
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#771
Mar 27, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Roman scribes were the first ones to document the stories of the street preachers who were the early Christians.
This is acknowledged by even many fundamentalist Christians!
You must really be very poorly educated on the subject. Just as you probably think Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus! Which it didn't until the second century. You probably think the Pharisees existed at his time when they actually didn't exist until after the fall of the temple in 70AD!
Lol!
<quoted text>
now you make another claim. how about documenting some fundamentalists who "acknowledge" this.
and yes i do think that nazareth existed in Jesus day. it just wasn't where it is now.
and yes the pharisees existed;
Pharisee, member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 bc–ad 70).
The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans.
To the Pharisees, worship consisted not in bloody sacrifices—the practice of the Temple priests—but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. Hence the Pharisees fostered the synagogue as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple. The synagogue may thus be considered a Pharasaic institution since the Pharisees developed it, raised it to high eminence, and gave it a central place in Jewish religious life.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/455...

The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect from the 2d century BC to the 2d century AD. The seeds of Pharisaism were planted during the Babylonian Captivity (587 - 536 BC), and a clearly defined party emerged during the revolt of the Maccabees (167 - 165 BC) against the Seleucid rulers of Syria - Palestine. The origin of the name Pharisees is uncertain; one suggestion renders it as "those separated," meaning separation from impurity and defilement. The name first appeared during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135 - 105 BC), whom the Pharisees opposed because of his assumption of both the royal and high - priestly titles and because of the general secularism of the court.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12...

so now it is up to you to support your lol position that the pharisees "actually didn't exist until after the fall of the temple in 70AD!"
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#772
Mar 27, 2013
 
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus set criteria that was not present in the old laws thus stopping the stoning, so yes Jesus did ask them to seek his approval.
Sorry but Leviticus and Deuteronomy are in the Old Testament, the stoning incident we on arguing about is in John 7:53 to 8:11 which is in the New Testament. I don’t know why I had to spell that out… any way let’s read it because you “obviously didn't know these things” because you referred to the Old Testament! http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus,“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”” Where was the man? There he is, it say’s they found them doing it with each other! They know where he was, someone is removing parts of the story.
“They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.” So yes they were trying to trick Jesus but this isn’t relevant! We want to know if Jesus over turned old laws and made a contradiction.
““Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.” Here Jesus is adding new criteria not present in the old laws… like I said he did.
"At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her,“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.“Go now and leave your life of sin.”"
Read “Then neither do I condemn you” part and go back to “In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women”. Here I have spelled it out.
And how do you know the word Jesus was writing was the final embarrassment it doesn’t say what he was writing! I know this may not be relevant but this is the second time I found you changing the story! So I have to ask our readers is barry or the people who feed his arguments to him changing the story for their own ends, are they changing the facts to reach the wanted conclusion? I have to say yes, so the failed attempts at this are now relevant, someone has been lying for Jesus!
you are clueless, why am i even having a conversation with you?
the law of moses "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women" [your words], the law of moses is found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. duhhhh!

so if Jesus set "criteria that was not present in the old laws" [your claim] just what were those new criteria?

you quote a passage and claim that the adulterous man was there but the quote only contains a reference to the woman. so i guess we will have to take it that you have a special in site to words not there that you feel should be there.
you did not nor do you understand why Jesus wrote on the ground. you make an assumption that does not even fit the story. if he was changing the law don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote? what he wrote was not important to us. why he wrote on the ground is what is more important to them and to us.
i have changed nothing to the story. nor have you shown what i have changed. you have only shown an ignorance of the story clouded by your faith in someone else's claim of a contradiction. a claim without a reasonable explanation.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#773
Mar 27, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and i enjoy chatting with you. you seem very intelligent, which i admire.
now..back to calling each other ignorant fools...
:)
ah come on i never .....:)

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#774
Mar 27, 2013
 
What you think is irrelevant as you have been factually destroyed several times already. Sorry there is zero historical proof for Nazareth until the second century. Even Jospehus makes no mention of it in his writings or maps nor did any Jewish records at the time.

This goes back to fat sweaty Romans misunderstanding what street preachers were saying. The term is most likely a reference to a group of Jewish outsiders known as truth tellers or Nazoreans. The fat sweaty Romans misunderstood and thought they were talking about the city of Nazareth. BTW Judas was a Jew in the myth not a roman. Just another of your errors.

You busted yourself on the Pharisees! The NT clearly shows again an again how the Pharisees were a powerful group that Jesus was fighting again and again.

And you just admitted they were a sect from the second century.

:)
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and yes i do think that nazareth existed in Jesus day. it just wasn't where it is now.

The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect from the 2d century BC!"
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#775
Mar 27, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
That story doesn't appear in the bible until the year 1100AD.
<quoted text>
even when you try to present something academically reasonable, you get the years way off.
Augustine quotes the passage. others; Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pacian and Didymus the Blind to name a few.

it is either refered to or found in the;
Didascalia Apostolorum, D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), Papias of Hierapolis, the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

the Papias of Hierapolis is second century.

while the handfull of the oldest manuscripts don't have it there are more than 900 manuscripts that support it.

there is no academic support for your claim of it not appearing in the bible until the year 1100AD.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 741 - 760 of1,638
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••