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.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

#816 Mar 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>not only was the law of moses not followed, the law of the day was not followed.
The infrequency of the death penalty was attributable to the meticulous application of stringent rules regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence. A court of at least 23 judges would have to be satisfied, to a legal certainty, that the capital offense had been committed before the court could impose a death sentence. Since the testimony of two eye-witnesses was required, and the witnesses were subjected to searching and detailed interrogation by the court, there was rarely an instance when the evidence met the prescribed legal standard. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Judges, Sanhedrin, chapter XII4.
http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html
Jesus had no legal authority to pass judgement. the problem was neither did the accusers.
you said this;
"When one quotes or describes the stories in it, you copy/write it down and give the book chapter and verse."
however i had said this;
second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24)”
seems to me i did reference the source of the OT law.
you are the one who is confused.
Problem, how is this relevant to the topic of did Jesus make a contradiction when he said those without sin throw the first stone.

No I still can’t say sorry as I think you point would have been clearer like this “the reason why the teachers asked Jesus what they should do with the adulteress was to see if he would go against the law of the Old Testament on this matter (said laws can be found in Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22-24)” Yes I am the one who is confused and I am the one who missed your point here but you are the one who made me so.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#817 Mar 29, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
“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!”
When one quotes or describes the stories in it, you copy/write it down and give the book chapter and verse. Look back at what you did in post 765 “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)” you gave your description of the story and gave an old testament source. So I thought that you thought the stoning occurred in the Old Testament because of this. Clearly I was wrong that is what you think but I can’t apologise seeing it was your use of sources that got this round my neck.
“so if Jesus set "criteria that was not present in the old laws" [your claim] just what were those new criteria?”
Jesus said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” in the old laws it didn’t matter if you sinned or not you could still kill her, Jesus demanded that only the sinless can punish her that’s the new criteria.
“you quote a passage and claim that the adulterous man was there but the quote only contains a reference to the woman”
Read it again it says ,“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery” now read what I said “Where was the man? There he is, it say’s they found them doing it with each other! They know where he was,”. I didn’t say it described the man, I said that they know where his was, and that this answers you question “where was the man involved? no man, no case.” By showing that the story says they found him. NOT by describing him.
“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?”
If he embarrassed the Pharisees by writing in the dirt don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote? Yes because it would be the words he wrote that hurt their case so badly.
“if he was changing the law don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote?” No! Because I haven’t said he changed the law like, I haven’t said that whatever he wrote changed the law but I have commented on what he said and thus imply that I claim he changed the law verbally.
“i have changed nothing to the story. nor have you shown what i have changed”
Yes you have changed the story and yes I have shown where. You seemed to implied that they didn’t know who the man was when you asked where he was, I have explained how they did know who and where he was as they saw those illegal lovers meting up,“this woman was caught in the act of adultery” getting caught in the act of adultery means someone sees you having sex! You say that when Jesus was writing in the dirt it was the final embarrassment, I say you can’t know that, as if it was the final embarrassment the story would say what he wrote, which it doesn’t.
It is you who has shown your ignorance of the story and now you have shown your ignorance of what I said and what I am claiming here in the 21st century, although there is one thing I have no reasonable explanation for and that's you… how the f*** do you f*** up this much? Maybe God makes you do it I don’t know!
It does answer the question: Could he write?. And the answer, apparently so. So why are these "pivotal to all mankind, words of Jesus" never scribbled down so that there could be no doubts as to his orders, to man*.

*Jewish man and Jewish woman, and Jewish children of a certain age, at which they became counted members of the tribe. All other humans(Gentiles) are as dogs. LOL! Just ask Jewsus. The savior mocks man's best friend and most of (mankind?).

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#818 Mar 29, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
You atheists are so messed up. Billy Graham helped us all, he helped the world!!! And just because his a Christian you guys want to end all he has done and forget about it.
Such Discriminating. I understand that if this world was ruled by atheism, it would not survive a day.
Atheists are just plain rude!! I know if I was a atheist even I would disagree with this.
Of course he helped, to lighten your wallets.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#819 Mar 29, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
You atheists are so messed up. Billy Graham helped us all, he helped the world!!! And just because his a Christian you guys want to end all he has done and forget about it.
Such Discriminating. I understand that if this world was ruled by atheism, it would not survive a day.
Atheists are just plain rude!! I know if I was a atheist even I would disagree with this.
how did he help the world or even a part of it? by propagating a cult based on proven lies? how does that help the world?

how does the inherent divisivness of religion help the world in any way?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#820 Mar 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Then?
You cannot POSSIBLY be a follower of your jesus character.
You hypocrite, you.
he didn't call us to be Jews.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#821 Mar 29, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem, how is this relevant to the topic of did Jesus make a contradiction when he said those without sin throw the first stone.
No I still can’t say sorry as I think you point would have been clearer like this “the reason why the teachers asked Jesus what they should do with the adulteress was to see if he would go against the law of the Old Testament on this matter (said laws can be found in Lev 20:10 and Deut 22:22-24)” Yes I am the one who is confused and I am the one who missed your point here but you are the one who made me so.
that's funny

the point is they didn't need his approval to stone her. he said go ahead if you can but they didn't did they.
Jesus was not he proper authority to be the accusation to. they didn't even bother to take her to the authorities now did they?
so there is no contradiction because they didn't follow the law.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#822 Mar 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
we do have documented history of the pharisees. Jerome is credited with being the first secular record of them even though many feel that jerome himself was a Pharisee. i'm not so sure myself about jerome being a pharisee.

Rabbi simply means master. the pharisees were masters of the law. some were doctors.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#823 Mar 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
read it again.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#824 Mar 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
you don't know? but you make the accusation anyway.
let me help you out.
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"
[these came from your post]
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.
[this comes from Galations 3 of the Bible]
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.
[this comes from Hebrews 4 of the Bible]
but he also is the only person who fulfilled the law in all of its prophesies concerning the promised redeemer.
[Acts 3:18]
so yes, he did not destroy the law but rather fulfilled it.
those are my sources. you see i still read the Book.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#825 Mar 29, 2013
And again the term Pharisee was first noted by Jospehus late in his life end of the 1st century. Whatever people decided to call their ancestors in the past before that means nothing. I could get people to say George Washington was a superhero, that doesn't mean that he was using the term back then. The term Rabbi came even later than Pharisee which again shows us how late the NT writings were cobbled together. My facts stand and you know it.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>we do have documented history of the pharisees. Jerome is credited with being the first secular record of them even though many feel that jerome himself was a Pharisee. i'm not so sure myself about jerome being a pharisee.
Rabbi simply means master. the pharisees were masters of the law. some were doctors.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#826 Mar 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And again the term Pharisee was first noted by Jospehus late in his life end of the 1st century. Whatever people decided to call their ancestors in the past before that means nothing. I could get people to say George Washington was a superhero, that doesn't mean that he was using the term back then. The term Rabbi came even later than Pharisee which again shows us how late the NT writings were cobbled together. My facts stand and you know it.
<quoted text>
except apparently now there are dead sea scrolls that confirm the existence of NT writings in the first century.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#827 Mar 29, 2013
The Dead Sea scrolls contain NT books?

OMFG!

Best go check into that again Colombo!

Wow... Just effing wow...

People do you see? Do you see that I am not exaggerating on how ignorant these people are? Here we have Barry a christhole who thinks the Dead Sea scrolls contain the gospels and other Nt works. Should I even tell him that the Dead Sea scrolls contain the book of Enoch and the book of giants two books excluded in almost all bibles today?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>except apparently now there are dead sea scrolls that confirm the existence of NT writings in the first century.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#828 Mar 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
The Dead Sea scrolls contain NT books?
OMFG!
Best go check into that again Colombo!
Wow... Just effing wow...
People do you see? Do you see that I am not exaggerating on how ignorant these people are? Here we have Barry a christhole who thinks the Dead Sea scrolls contain the gospels and other Nt works. Should I even tell him that the Dead Sea scrolls contain the book of Enoch and the book of giants two books excluded in almost all bibles today?
<quoted text>
the word i used was "confirmed" not "contained" and all the people can see that either you don't read very good or you deliberately twisted what i said.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#829 Mar 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>he didn't call us to be Jews.
Actually? He did >>exactly<< that.

You just keep forgetting that part.

Classic Salad-Bar Christian: you pick and choose from the buffet of the NT.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#830 Mar 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>read it again.
I've read the BuyBull 100's of times over my lifetime.

Can you say the same? No?

We figured as much.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#831 Mar 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you don't know? but you make the accusation anyway.
let me help you out.
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"
[these came from your post]
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.
[this comes from Galations 3 of the Bible]
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.
[this comes from Hebrews 4 of the Bible]
but he also is the only person who fulfilled the law in all of its prophesies concerning the promised redeemer.
[Acts 3:18]
so yes, he did not destroy the law but rather fulfilled it.
those are my sources. you see i still read the Book.
If you're gonna try to QUOTE someone? It would help if you used THAT PERSON'S ACTUAL WORDS.

I would never have said "Christian dispensation supersedes the law"--- specifically, I'd not have stated "dispensation" at all. Not a word I'd use.

So your attempt at FALSE WITNESS is exposed for the lie that it is.

In any case, Jewsus specifically intended (by your NT, but exclusive of the heretic Paul) everyone to convert to Judaism.

It was only later, that the heretic Paul absolved that-- when he re-wrote 99% of christianity into his own particular delusions. He saw that most folk were unwilling to follow through, and realized he'd soon be out of a job, and have to make a REAL living, instead of the con he was running.

So the heretic paul, who started out as anti-Jewsus-cult, re-imaged himself in a Donald Trump move, and re-wrote the rules to suit his new con.

And you bought into that con.

Sad for you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#832 Mar 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>except apparently now there are dead sea scrolls that confirm the existence of NT writings in the first century.
LOL!

No- they do not.

I kinda wish they did--but they don't.

Most of those scrolls were accounting records anyhow...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#833 Mar 29, 2013
How could they have confirmed?

Hard to believe but you just sounded dumber! Best stop while you're ahead chump, you are way out of your league.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the word i used was "confirmed" not "contained" and all the people can see that either you don't read very good or you deliberately twisted what i said.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#834 Mar 29, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
The Dead Sea scrolls contain NT books?
OMFG!
Best go check into that again Colombo!
Wow... Just effing wow...
People do you see? Do you see that I am not exaggerating on how ignorant these people are? Here we have Barry a christhole who thinks the Dead Sea scrolls contain the gospels and other Nt works. Should I even tell him that the Dead Sea scrolls contain the book of Enoch and the book of giants two books excluded in almost all bibles today?
<quoted text>
Yep.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#835 Mar 29, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the word i used was "confirmed" not "contained" and all the people can see that either you don't read very good or you deliberately twisted what i said.
Oh! I get it now-- you are using the word "confirmed" in a brand-new way that nobody on Earth understands apart from... you.

LOL!

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) 32 min Uncle Sam 238,359
News Confessions of a black atheist 4 hr Mikko 475
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Chimney1 18,851
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Sun Amused 25
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