Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

There are 20 comments on the Q-Notes story from Feb 13, 2013, titled Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?. In it, Q-Notes reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Q-Notes.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#327 Feb 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you really haven't proved anything. all you have done is state your faith in someone else's claim about josephus. if it was an altered copy then there should be a family of copies that are unaltered. are there any?
I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt-- ALL the bits in Josephus' writings that mention your ficiontal jesus, are in the WRONG LANGUAGE.

Why is this so very hard for you to grasp?

The language used, was TOO NEW, to have been written by Josephus.

There really is no two ways about it-- it's a fraudulent passage, written by people who lie for a living.

You know.

You Genuine Christians™

Now go and lie some more, why don't you? Lying is your sole reason to exist, after all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#328 Feb 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>have a happy life, it is all that you have. everyone who doesn't see things your way is a liar. that is so 4 year oldish.
Since you are a well established liar of note?

I seriously doubt you are even a little bit happy-- you cannot possibly be, and lie so much.

Especially the lies you keep telling yourself-- that you are all "happy".

Riiiiiiight ...

... and for the record? Lots of people don't see things my way-- who aren't a liar like YOU are.

You are among that lying elite, after all.

You know the group?

It's called Genuine Christians™

Or as it's accurately described: Liars For Jesus

You do it so very, very well.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#329 Feb 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's funny when i say that you're wrong you want me to prove it but when you say that i'm wrong you assume no obligation to prove it. how convenient.
I have no obligation to prove YOU claims, silly boyo!

The burden of proof is ALL ON YOU-- for YOU are the idiot who thinks that a Zombie Jew was a magical man/god, and is still alive sitting on some sort of magical, golden throne somewhere or other.

How silly your religion is!

But, since you have NO proof to support your religion?

The default state is that it is 100% false.

I need provide no more proof than to ask to see YOUR proof.

Since you don't actually have any?

The default state, of your religion being false, stands unchallenged.

I really didn't have to do ANYthing, here.

Silly!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#330 Feb 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>this was the question;
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, humor me. just where did Jesus tell his followers to sell everything.
you didn't answer the question did you. maybe you haven't read the book. or maybe you don't have an answer because what you said might be inaccurate.
i did notice that you now are trying to broaden the topic in the hopes that now there will be something to cover your broader claims.
Look, you ignorant fool-- it's not MY book here-- it is YOURS.

It is not up to ME to educate YOU on YOUR OWN BOOK.

Wow, are you lazy, or WHAT!

I told you how to get it-- I even gave you the search terms to put into one of those online bible thingies.

But you? You are either so very lazy, or you simply are too stupid to know how to run a bible-search....!

Wow.

Talk about ignorant!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#331 Feb 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"He" clicked on it and then showed that it actually did not support bob's claims at all. apparently bob never read it or he had a predetermined mind set that caused him to not understand what it said.
You? You are just lying once again.

LOL!

You could've even posted your "evidence"... as a "quote", with a link...

.... LOL!

But seeing as you were LYING? You couldn't really DO that, could you?

LOL!

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#332 Feb 27, 2013
Not really. It led to alll the ring copycat movies ugh!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ring is another one I missed seeing. From what I have seen of bits and pieces of it, I didn't miss anything either.
:)
barry

Rainsville, AL

#333 Feb 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No. Nazareth is a Jewish settlement that shows up on maps and documented records at exactly the same time the artifacts from Nazareth show up. The second century.
Stop pulling stuff right out of your christhole.
<quoted text>
"There was an ancient settlement in the neighborhood of Nazareth called Japhia. It is
mentioned in the Bible (Jos 19:12), as well as in the Egyptian Amarna letters of XIV BCE.
Today, archaeologists know of Japhia only from the Roman ruins of the town 3km SW of
Nazareth. Japhia was destroyed in 67 CE, during the First Jewish Revolt. Curiously, there are no
Bronze-Iron Age remains of Japhia under the Roman ruins. So, the early town mentioned in the
Bible was somewhere nearby. There was indeed a considerable settlement in the Nazareth basin
during those eras, one beginning about 2000 BCE and continuing for about thirteen centuries
(from the Middle Bronze Age to the Middle Iron Age). Thus, by synoptically viewing the
evidence from Japhia together with that from the neighboring Nazareth basin, one arrives at the
very likely solution:“Japhia” was located in the Nazareth basin in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and
it moved in the course of centuries to the eventual Roman location three kilometers away. Such
village movement over time was not unusual, and occurred for a variety of reasons. In the case of
Japhia we have a good reason: Assyria conquered Israel in 732 BCE and destroyed all the major
towns in northern Palestine. It is likely that Japhia was also a casualty of the general destruction
at that time. Thus, the earliest town of Nazareth was not “Nazareth” at all, but Japhia.
http://oldsite.atheists.org/wiki/images/c/cf/... ;

this website and this author hardly have anything to do with Christ.
you can't even accept the words of one your own.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#334 Feb 27, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Graham also said to Nixon - "They (the Jews)don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country".
Tell me Barry, what part of the Bible is that from?
"and you might want to get a better accuracy about accusing bg of talking to nixon about "satanic jews" he never used that phrase and was quoting a verse in the book of revelation that says that there are those who claim to be Jews who are liars, and that they belong to a "synagogue of Satan."
written of course by the apostle john who like Christ was a jew.
he was also honored by the American Jewish Committee in 1977 for promoting Protestant-Jewish relations over the past quarter century.
hardly fits your subtle accusation of him being anti-semetic."

so i see that you have backed off of your original accusation when it was proven to be a grave distortion of the truth. now you are fishing with another accusation. really? how about a link so that we can see the context?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#335 Feb 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt-- ALL the bits in Josephus' writings that mention your ficiontal jesus, are in the WRONG LANGUAGE.
Why is this so very hard for you to grasp?
The language used, was TOO NEW, to have been written by Josephus.
There really is no two ways about it-- it's a fraudulent passage, written by people who lie for a living.
You know.
You Genuine Christians™
Now go and lie some more, why don't you? Lying is your sole reason to exist, after all.
sow we have to take your word for it that they are in the wrong language? how about those copies that would have been made from the "unaltered" copies before a copy was "altered".
barry

Rainsville, AL

#336 Feb 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you are a well established liar of note?
I seriously doubt you are even a little bit happy-- you cannot possibly be, and lie so much.
Especially the lies you keep telling yourself-- that you are all "happy".
Riiiiiiight ...
... and for the record? Lots of people don't see things my way-- who aren't a liar like YOU are.
You are among that lying elite, after all.
You know the group?
It's called Genuine Christians™
Or as it's accurately described: Liars For Jesus
You do it so very, very well.
do i have permission to frame this and hang it on the wall in my office?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#337 Feb 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no obligation to prove YOU claims, silly boyo!
The burden of proof is ALL ON YOU-- for YOU are the idiot who thinks that a Zombie Jew was a magical man/god, and is still alive sitting on some sort of magical, golden throne somewhere or other.
How silly your religion is!
But, since you have NO proof to support your religion?
The default state is that it is 100% false.
I need provide no more proof than to ask to see YOUR proof.
Since you don't actually have any?
The default state, of your religion being false, stands unchallenged.
I really didn't have to do ANYthing, here.
Silly!
"barry wrote:
<quoted text>that's funny when i say that you're wrong you want me to prove it but when you say that i'm wrong you assume no obligation to prove it. how convenient."

you confirmed my understanding of your position. thank you
barry

Rainsville, AL

#338 Feb 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, you ignorant fool-- it's not MY book here-- it is YOURS.
It is not up to ME to educate YOU on YOUR OWN BOOK.
Wow, are you lazy, or WHAT!
I told you how to get it-- I even gave you the search terms to put into one of those online bible thingies.
But you? You are either so very lazy, or you simply are too stupid to know how to run a bible-search....!
Wow.
Talk about ignorant!
look, your the one who claimed that Jesus said that his followers needed to sell everything i said that he never said that so you claim it exists how about putting up the reference. i'm sure one of your anti Christ sites can help you with it.

barry wrote:
<quoted text>this was the question;
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, humor me. just where did Jesus tell his followers to sell everything.
you didn't answer the question did you. maybe you haven't read the book. or maybe you don't have an answer because what you said might be inaccurate.
i did notice that you now are trying to broaden the topic in the hopes that now there will be something to cover your broader claims.

how about it? are you arguing a "default state" here?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#339 Feb 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You? You are just lying once again.
LOL!
You could've even posted your "evidence"... as a "quote", with a link...
.... LOL!
But seeing as you were LYING? You couldn't really DO that, could you?
LOL!
liar,liar, pants on fire...you haven't used that one yet.

however on feb 20 post #69 you made this claim;
"Not a single document, letter, diary, book-of-whatever, was written about your Jewsus during his life." [and you're right. he only lived 33yrs. not too many people who only live 33yrs have a book writen about them during their life time however you said this;]
"Not one. All--without exception-- were written 60, 90, 100's of years AFTER.
And in THOSE days? That is generations too late.
So there you go: the bible you worship?
100% fiction."

then in post #86 you posted this as your "proof"
"Here's an excellent source--it has many references to where the information came from, too.

" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar ... ;

But I will bet you $20 that you won't click on it, or of you do--you won't read beyond the title page.
People such as yourself, prefer living the lie, and avoid at all costs, the actual...
... facts."

so i clicked on the link and this is what it said;

"All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date.[2] But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D.[3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D.[3a]"
"This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on."

then i post 114 you admit that;
"Your Jewsus was allegedly born on or around 3BCE. And died approximately 33 years later, at around 30CE.
...
Nothing was written DURING the period 3BCE to 60CE about your Jewsus-person.
...
The OLDEST writing dates to approximately 60CE.

Some date from 100CE and on.

Most date even later than that."so according to your source and your admittance, you are wrong

the gospels were not written 60, 90, 100's of years AFTER.

in fact according to your site those who think thatthose who place the writings of the gospels in the second century "have nothing to base such a position on."

therefor your post #77 is interesting;
"Lie.
All modern bible scholarship agree that the OLDEST gospel is 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus.[so who was lying?]
SIXTY YEARS.[wrong]
The others are 100-120 years post-death.[wrong again]
Please, go back and get an actual... education.[really you admitted he would have died in 33 and so your the one who can't do elementary math]
Only lying-for-jesus people disagree here.[so the site you posted is now a lying for Jesus site?]

and then your post #83 yousaid;
"You really don't know where your bible came from, do you?
LOL! The bible as YOU know it, did not exist prior to roughly 300CE, when it was fabricated by Constantine's hand-picked bible-committee."

the site you posted says this;"the NT was almost entirely accepted in its present form by 250 A.D., and not much changed from its apparent form in 180,"

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#340 Feb 27, 2013
Link doesn't work, why am I not surprised? I could care less if Dawkins said it all historical evidence shows Nazareth didn't exist until the second century.

But again you link doesn't even work so we can safely assume you pulled this right out of your christhole.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"There was an ancient settlement in the neighborhood of Nazareth called Japhia. It is
mentioned in the Bible (Jos 19:12), as well as in the Egyptian Amarna letters of XIV BCE.
Today, archaeologists know of Japhia only from the Roman ruins of the town 3km SW of
Nazareth. Japhia was destroyed in 67 CE, during the First Jewish Revolt. Curiously, there are no
Bronze-Iron Age remains of Japhia under the Roman ruins. So, the early town mentioned in the
Bible was somewhere nearby. There was indeed a considerable settlement in the Nazareth basin
during those eras, one beginning about 2000 BCE and continuing for about thirteen centuries
(from the Middle Bronze Age to the Middle Iron Age). Thus, by synoptically viewing the
evidence from Japhia together with that from the neighboring Nazareth basin, one arrives at the
very likely solution:“Japhia” was located in the Nazareth basin in the Bronze and Iron Ages, and
it moved in the course of centuries to the eventual Roman location three kilometers away. Such
village movement over time was not unusual, and occurred for a variety of reasons. In the case of
Japhia we have a good reason: Assyria conquered Israel in 732 BCE and destroyed all the major
towns in northern Palestine. It is likely that Japhia was also a casualty of the general destruction
at that time. Thus, the earliest town of Nazareth was not “Nazareth” at all, but Japhia.
http://oldsite.atheists.org/wiki/images/c/cf/... ;
this website and this author hardly have anything to do with Christ.
you can't even accept the words of one your own.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#341 Feb 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You? You are just lying once again.
LOL!
You could've even posted your "evidence"... as a "quote", with a link...
.... LOL!
But seeing as you were LYING? You couldn't really DO that, could you?
LOL!
liar,liar, pants on fire...you haven't used that one yet.

however on feb 20 post #69 you made this claim;
"Not a single document, letter, diary, book-of-whatever, was written about your Jewsus during his life." [and you're right. he only lived 33yrs. not too many people who only live 33yrs have a book writen about them during their life time however you said this;]
"Not one. All--without exception-- were written 60, 90, 100's of years AFTER.
And in THOSE days? That is generations too late.
So there you go: the bible you worship?
100% fiction."

then in post #86 you posted this as your "proof"
"Here's an excellent source--it has many references to where the information came from, too.

" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar ... ;

But I will bet you $20 that you won't click on it, or of you do--you won't read beyond the title page.
People such as yourself, prefer living the lie, and avoid at all costs, the actual...
... facts."

so i clicked on the link and this is what it said;

"All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date.[2] But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D.[3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D.[3a]"
"This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on."

then in post 114 you admit that;
"Your Jewsus was allegedly born on or around 3BCE. And died approximately 33 years later, at around 30CE.
...
Nothing was written DURING the period 3BCE to 60CE about your Jewsus-person.
...
The OLDEST writing dates to approximately 60CE.
Some date from 100CE and on.
Most date even later than that."
so according to your source and your admittance, you are wrong

the gospels were not written 60, 90, 100's of years AFTER.

in fact according to your site those who think thatthose who place the writings of the gospels in the second century "have nothing to base such a position on."

therefor your post #77 is interesting;
"Lie.
All modern bible scholarship agree that the OLDEST gospel is 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus.[so who was lying?]
SIXTY YEARS.[wrong]
The others are 100-120 years post-death.[wrong again]
Please, go back and get an actual... education.[really you admitted he would have died in 33 and so your the one who can't do elementary math]
Only lying-for-jesus people disagree here.[so the site you posted is now a lying for Jesus site?]

and then your post #83 yousaid;
"You really don't know where your bible came from, do you?
LOL! The bible as YOU know it, did not exist prior to roughly 300CE, when it was fabricated by Constantine's hand-picked bible-committee."

the site you posted says this;"the NT was almost entirely accepted in its present form by 250 A.D., and not much changed from its apparent form in 180,"
barry

Rainsville, AL

#342 Feb 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Link doesn't work, why am I not surprised? I could care less if Dawkins said it all historical evidence shows Nazareth didn't exist until the second century.
But again you link doesn't even work so we can safely assume you pulled this right out of your christhole.
<quoted text>
lame, it works, and apparently no one else on the internet has a problem with the link as it is widely discussed. you can stop now with the vulgar use of Christ's name.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#343 Feb 27, 2013
Again your Link doesn't work. This game of your's is getting tiring now.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>liar,liar, pants on fire...you haven't used that one yet.
however on feb 20 post #69 you made this claim;
"Not a single document, letter, diary, book-of-whatever, was written about your Jewsus during his life." [and you're right. he only lived 33yrs. not too many people who only live 33yrs have a book writen about them during their life time however you said this;]
"Not one. All--without exception-- were written 60, 90, 100's of years AFTER.
And in THOSE days? That is generations too late.
So there you go: the bible you worship?
100% fiction."
then in post #86 you posted this as your "proof"
"Here's an excellent source--it has many references to where the information came from, too.
" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar ... ;
But I will bet you $20 that you won't click on it, or of you do--you won't read beyond the title page.
People such as yourself, prefer living the lie, and avoid at all costs, the actual...
... facts."
so i clicked on the link and this is what it said;
"All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date.[2] But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D.[3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D.[3a]"
"This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on."
then in post 114 you admit that;
"Your Jewsus was allegedly born on or around 3BCE. And died approximately 33 years later, at around 30CE.
...
Nothing was written DURING the period 3BCE to 60CE about your Jewsus-person.
...
The OLDEST writing dates to approximately 60CE.
Some date from 100CE and on.
Most date even later than that."
so according to your source and your admittance, you are wrong
the gospels were not written 60, 90, 100's of years AFTER.
in fact according to your site those who think thatthose who place the writings of the gospels in the second century "have nothing to base such a position on."
therefor your post #77 is interesting;
"Lie.
All modern bible scholarship agree that the OLDEST gospel is 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus.[so who was lying?]
SIXTY YEARS.[wrong]
The others are 100-120 years post-death.[wrong again]
Please, go back and get an actual... education.[really you admitted he would have died in 33 and so your the one who can't do elementary math]
Only lying-for-jesus people disagree here.[so the site you posted is now a lying for Jesus site?]
and then your post #83 yousaid;
"You really don't know where your bible came from, do you?
LOL! The bible as YOU know it, did not exist prior to roughly 300CE, when it was fabricated by Constantine's hand-picked bible-committee."
the site you posted says this;"the NT was almost entirely accepted in its present form by 250 A.D., and not much changed from its apparent form in 180,"
barry

Rainsville, AL

#344 Feb 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Link doesn't work, why am I not surprised? I could care less if Dawkins said it all historical evidence shows Nazareth didn't exist until the second century.
But again you link doesn't even work so we can safely assume you pulled this right out of your christhole.
<quoted text>
http://oldsite.atheists.org/wi ki/images/c/cf/Myth_of_Nazaret h_article_ed.pdf

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#345 Feb 27, 2013
404 errors. Regardless of your silly little 404 error pages all secular evidence shoes Nazareth not existing until the 2nd century when it shows up a mile away from Joppa. Not the same city so stop pulling lies out of your christhole.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>lame, it works, and apparently no one else on the internet has a problem with the link as it is widely discussed. you can stop now with the vulgar use of Christ's name.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#346 Feb 27, 2013
Oldsite is a blogging site where anyone can blog about anything. Even if your links worked they are leading to an unreliable source. You can find snakemen rule the world blogs on Oldsite!

Stop being a christhole, Nazareth didn't exist until the second century, just accept it.
barry wrote:

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Uncle Sam 238,333
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min Denisova 18,848
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 17 hr Amused 25
News Confessions of a black atheist 17 hr thetruth 465
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) Sun thetruth 6,124
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Sun thetruth 2,094
News The Consequences of Atheism Sat Koala_Gums 1,340
More from around the web