Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Feb 13, 2013 Full story: Q-Notes 1,638

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

Full Story

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#796 Mar 28, 2013
barry wrote:
#2 to claim that Jesus was not all powerful because of Mark 6:5 is to not even have read the passage.
"But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them."
in life what we can do and what we can not bring ourselves to do are often the same thing. as a track coach i can find ways to cheat. but because i am an honest person and the bigger picture is more important than the opportunity of the moment i could not [choose not to] cheat. just because it says that he couldn't do it does not mean that it was not in his power to do so rather because of circumstances he chose not to.
Your analogy fails.

Jesus was, according to you-- a GOD.

He either is a god, or he's a fake.

If he's a god? He has unlimited power--right there on the label.

If his power is limited?

He's not a god.

QED.

Fail.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#797 Mar 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>we are not robots that we have to do exactly as everything is preordained.
nor are we babies that we must be bottle fed only what is perfectly good for us.
the Christian life is one of choices and faith. we love him because he first loved us. not because we have no other choice.
Then?

Your god is not omniscient.

The ONLY way that you can have real free will?

Is IF your god can be SURPRISED by what you choose.

But, according to your bible? That is impossible.

Thus?

There is no free will-- if your god is real (as the bible describes).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#798 Mar 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>#3 "17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
"The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation"
your idea that a "Christian dispensation supersedes the law is flawed.
first of all the law is our teacher that shows us our need of a savior because no of us can keep [fulfill] the law.
second of all Christ is the only person who could fulfill the law. he was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin.
but he also is the only person who fulfilled the law in all of its prophesies concerning the promised redeemer.
so yes, he did not destroy the law but rather fulfilled it.
If you are going to STEAL your "answer" from someone else?

I suggest you credit the original author.

In any case? Your stolen "reply" ignores the main point-- that Jesus was first and foremost, a Jew.

And, as a good Jew, he would advocate following ALL the laws.

Not just the ones you like.

Thus, if you've ever eaten bacon? You're in a state of apostasy...

But Pick-And-Choose Religion™ is another hallmark of...

.... a hypocrite.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#799 Mar 28, 2013
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone

Who's story does this sound like? It's okay we know you won't actually read links apologetic freak boy.

Still waiting for your secular historic evidence that Jesus existed or have you given up?

At the end of your nonsense you confessed that these opinions were brought to us by theist scholars and apologetics. Sorry but that is unacceptable as they operate on presupposed guidelines.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>Pharisee, member of a Jewish religious party that .
barry

Rainsville, AL

#800 Mar 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Then?
Your god is not omniscient.
The ONLY way that you can have real free will?
Is IF your god can be SURPRISED by what you choose.
But, according to your bible? That is impossible.
Thus?
There is no free will-- if your god is real (as the bible describes).
you limit God to the extent of your own understanding. and when we look back at what you can't seem to grasp, it is very understandable why you don't understand.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#801 Mar 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to STEAL your "answer" from someone else?
I suggest you credit the original author.
In any case? Your stolen "reply" ignores the main point-- that Jesus was first and foremost, a Jew.
And, as a good Jew, he would advocate following ALL the laws.
Not just the ones you like.
Thus, if you've ever eaten bacon? You're in a state of apostasy...
But Pick-And-Choose Religion™ is another hallmark of...
.... a hypocrite.
oh, so you think i stole my reply from some where; pray tell us where do you think i stole it from?

barry wrote:
<quoted text>#3 "17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
"The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation"
your idea that a "Christian dispensation supersedes the law is flawed.
first of all the law is our teacher that shows us our need of a savior because no of us can keep [fulfill] the law.
second of all Christ is the only person who could fulfill the law. he was tempted in all points like as we are yet without sin.
but he also is the only person who fulfilled the law in all of its prophesies concerning the promised redeemer.
so yes, he did not destroy the law but rather fulfilled it.

i guess you are back to making wild unsubstantiated accusations when you have no support for your claims.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#802 Mar 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
...
In any case? Your stolen "reply" ignores the main point-- that Jesus was first and foremost, a Jew.
And, as a good Jew, he would advocate following ALL the laws.
Not just the ones you like.
Thus, if you've ever eaten bacon? You're in a state of apostasy...
But Pick-And-Choose Religion™ is another hallmark of...
.... a hypocrite.
and as a Jew he kept the law. i, on the other hand, am not a Jew. i am not obligated to keep the dietary law.
Genesis 9:3 ESV
"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."
Acts 10:11-15
"...heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

so instead of calling names why don't you inquire in a civilized manner.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#803 Mar 28, 2013
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone

Who's story does this sound like? It's okay we know you won't actually read links apologetic freak boy.

Still waiting for your secular historic evidence that Jesus existed or have you given up?

At the end of your nonsense you confessed that these opinions were brought to us by theist scholars and apologetics. Sorry but that is unacceptable as they operate on presupposed guidelines.

The first secular mention of the Pharisees is by Josephus towards the end of the first century after the destruction of the temple where he breaks down the Jews into 4 groups of believers.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#sect...

Next we have the Mishnah which first explains and lays out Pharisee law in 200 CE and note most of the people quoted in that were born after the destruction of the temple in the year 70.
This was the transition path into the term Rabbi being used for Jewish religious leaders.... Wait what did Jesus' followers call him again?

Rabbi.

:)

Religious apologies not needed.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>Pharisee, member of a Jewish religious party that .
barry

Rainsville, AL

#804 Mar 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone
Who's story does this sound like? It's okay we know you won't actually read links apologetic freak boy.
Still waiting for your secular historic evidence that Jesus existed or have you given up?
At the end of your nonsense you confessed that these opinions were brought to us by C. Sorry but that is unacceptable as they operate on presupposed guidelines.
<quoted text>
gml, you are a dishonest person or perhaps challenged.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>Pharisee, member of a Jewish religious party that .
you know that none of the links i posted to support the truth about the existence of the Pharisees were in any way shape or form "At the end of your nonsense you confessed that these opinions were brought to us by theist scholars and apologetics [sic]."

now Persephone is an interesting article, but i fail to see the pint that you are making. if you have one, maybe you could help us to understand by explaining it.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#805 Mar 28, 2013
Oh and Barry you need to look up the Maccabee revolt before you humiliate yourself worse. Is a tale of Jewish rebellion that has been rewritten several times including much much later having Pharisee law and tradition placed in it. They took this old story and claimed it as their own trying to set themselves up as the true Jews so to speak.

MB-soft is a blogger site where anyone can say anything. Stop humiliating yourself, sheesh!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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," ... 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!"

Apologetic web sites?
that would be the "Encyclopedia Britanica" i guess it was put out by the church of britan,
then of course the "Jewish Encyclopedia" now Christ was a Jew so i guess it qualifies as an "apologetic" site.

and mb-soft.com ;
barry

Rainsville, AL

#806 Mar 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone
Who's story does this sound like? It's okay we know you won't actually read links apologetic freak boy.
Still waiting for your secular historic evidence that Jesus existed or have you given up?
At the end of your nonsense you confessed that these opinions were brought to us by theist scholars and apologetics. Sorry but that is unacceptable as they operate on presupposed guidelines.
The first secular mention of the Pharisees is by Josephus towards the end of the first century after the destruction of the temple where he breaks down the Jews into 4 groups of believers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#sect...
Next we have the Mishnah which first explains and lays out Pharisee law in 200 CE and note most of the people quoted in that were born after the destruction of the temple in the year 70.
This was the transition path into the term Rabbi being used for Jewish religious leaders.... Wait what did Jesus' followers call him again?
Rabbi.
:)
Religious apologies not needed.
<quoted text>
gml, here is the opening statement of the web site that you posted above;

"The Pharisees were at various times a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought among Jews during the Second Temple period beginning under the Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE) in the wake of the Maccabean Revolt.

Conflicts between the Pharisees and the Sadducees took place in the context of much broader and longstanding social and religious conflicts among Jews dating back to the Babylonian captivity and exacerbated by the Roman conquest."

sounds to me like you missed the point.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/H...

(notice, jewish site)

"Of the various factions that emerged under Hasmonean rule, three are of particular interest: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

The Pharisees

The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah or Written Law was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud."

the hasmoean rule was 2nd century BC notice BC
barry

Rainsville, AL

#807 Mar 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone
Who's story does this sound like? It's okay we know you won't actually read links apologetic freak boy.
Still waiting for your secular historic evidence that Jesus existed or have you given up?
At the end of your nonsense you confessed that these opinions were brought to us by theist scholars and apologetics. Sorry but that is unacceptable as they operate on presupposed guidelines.
The first secular mention of the Pharisees is by Josephus towards the end of the first century after the destruction of the temple where he breaks down the Jews into 4 groups of believers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#sect...
Next we have the Mishnah which first explains and lays out Pharisee law in 200 CE and note most of the people quoted in that were born after the destruction of the temple in the year 70.
This was the transition path into the term Rabbi being used for Jewish religious leaders.... Wait what did Jesus' followers call him again?
Rabbi.
:)
Religious apologies not needed.
<quoted text>
then you try to use the Mishna;
It was redacted 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions dating from Pharisaic times (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten.

The Mishnah reflects debates between 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE by the group of rabbinic sages known as the Tannaim.[6] The Mishnah teaches the oral traditions by example, presenting actual cases being brought to judgment, usually along with the debate on the matter and the judgment that was given by a wise and notable rabbi based on the halacha, mitzvot, and spirit of the teaching ("Torah") that guided his sentencing. In this way, it brings to everyday reality the practice of the mitzvot as presented in the Bible, and aims to cover all aspects of human living, serve as an example for future judgments, and, most important, demonstrate pragmatic exercise of the Biblical laws, which was much needed at the time when the Second Temple was destroyed (70 CE). The Mishnah does not claim to be the development of new laws, but rather the collection of existing traditions

do notice that phrase "Pharisaic times (536 BCE – 70 CE)"
do notice that it is an historical preservation of the oral tradition especially the "debates between 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE by the group of rabbinic sages"

sorry you are only embarrassing your self trying to prove that the Pharisees did not exist until after Christ.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#808 Mar 28, 2013
barry

Rainsville, AL

#809 Mar 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and Barry you need to look up the Maccabee revolt before you humiliate yourself worse. Is a tale of Jewish rebellion that has been rewritten several times including much much later having Pharisee law and tradition placed in it. They took this old story and claimed it as their own trying to set themselves up as the true Jews so to speak.
MB-soft is a blogger site where anyone can say anything. Stop humiliating yourself, sheesh!
<quoted text>
another unsubstantiated claim that really even if true would not change the evidence of their existence. it would only challenge the accuracy of Encyclopedia Britanica.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#810 Mar 28, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and Barry you need to look up the Maccabee revolt before you humiliate yourself worse. Is a tale of Jewish rebellion that has been rewritten several times including much much later having Pharisee law and tradition placed in it. They took this old story and claimed it as their own trying to set themselves up as the true Jews so to speak.
MB-soft is a blogger site where anyone can say anything. Stop humiliating yourself, sheesh!
<quoted text>
truth is still truth even if you happen to say it. i'm still waiting however for some truth from you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#811 Mar 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you limit God to the extent of your own understanding. and when we look back at what you can't seem to grasp, it is very understandable why you don't understand.
Nope.

I "limit" your "god" by what YOUR BOOK says, that is all.

Silly.

You can lie all you like? But unlike YOU? I've actually read your bible....

... and your bible describes a god wherein free will simply cannot exist at all.

Pity you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#812 Mar 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>oh, so you think i stole my reply from some where; pray tell us where do you think i stole it from?
I dunno-- any number of Genuine Christian™ apologizer websites abound here and there.

Your shill was pure apologetics-- apologies for why your bible simply doesn't work.

And vain and failed attempts to "explain" why your bible is so...

... inconsistent.

Hint: if you must APOLOGIZE for your bible? That book ain't divine in ANY way, shape or form.

Hint: if you have to "explain" what your bible "means"?

It also means your book isn't even a LITTLE bit divine.

And that is what bible apologetics-- or more accurately-- bible apoligizers-- is:

an attempt to smooth over the very ugly bibles' many atrocities.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#813 Mar 28, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and as a Jew he kept the law. i, on the other hand, am not a Jew. i am not obligated to keep the dietary law.
Then?

You cannot POSSIBLY be a follower of your jesus character.

You hypocrite, you.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#814 Mar 28, 2013
Thy can call their time whatever they so please but all they are doing is taking their name and extending it back centuries. We see many wacky new Christian churches pop up and they claim they are the one and only true Christians going back to the apostles.

Anyone can make any such crazy claim and it is of no consequence without the documentation to back it up.

The oldest secular documented mention of the Pharisees were by Josephus late in his life towards the end on the first century.

It even admits this from your own link.

Sorry but I deal in fact, actual documented fact.

This makes the Jesus myth all the more silly as the term Rabbi was used to replace Pharisee and yet Jesus' followers on the bible supposedly called him Rabbi which clearly shows how late these texts were written.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then you try to use the Mishna;
It was redacted 220 CE by Rabbi Yehudah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions dating from Pharisaic times (536 BCE – 70 CE) would be forgotten.

The Mishnah reflects debates between 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE by the group of rabbinic sages known as the Tannaim.[6] The Mishnah teaches the oral traditions by example, presenting actual cases being brought to judgment, usually along with the debate on the matter and the judgment that was given by a wise and notable rabbi based on the halacha, mitzvot, and spirit of the teaching ("Torah") that guided his sentencing. In this way, it brings to everyday reality the practice of the mitzvot as presented in the Bible, and aims to cover all aspects of human living, serve as an example for future judgments, and, most important, demonstrate pragmatic exercise of the Biblical laws, which was much needed at the time when the Second Temple was destroyed (70 CE). The Mishnah does not claim to be the development of new laws, but rather the collection of existing traditions

do notice that phrase "Pharisaic times (536 BCE – 70 CE)"
do notice that it is an historical preservation of the oral tradition especially the "debates between 1st century BCE and 2nd century CE by the group of rabbinic sages"

sorry you are only embarrassing your self trying to prove that the Pharisees did not exist until after Christ.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#815 Mar 28, 2013
Your cherry picked spam doesn't change the fact that the story has been rewritten and that we have no documentation of the term Pharisee until the time of Josephus.

And Pharisee was replaced with Rabbi later on.... And what does the bible say Jesus was called?

Rabbi.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>another unsubstantiated claim that really even if true would not change the evidence of their existence. it would only challenge the accuracy of Encyclopedia Britanica.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 38 min Eagle 12 235,813
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr thetruth 4,901
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr thetruth 1,670
Turkey blocks website of its first atheist asso... 1 hr thetruth 3
What evidence make you believe in God/gods? 1 hr thetruth 31
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 16,902
The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr Thinking 827
More from around the web