Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

There are 1638 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.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1467 May 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>if you wish to claim knowledge about levitical sacrifices then you must accept the standards and rules of those sacrifices found in the book of leviticus. why would the Bible have to mention exactly how he completed the vow if there was only one way that he could complete the vow that was acceptable to God? had he burned her he would not have completed the vow and God would have commented on his error. however God praises him as a man of faith.
As I said before, the buybull is a book of contradiction. So the fact that burnyt offering is forbidden in Lev is meaningless to me.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1468 May 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so i guess you will now show where the Bible says that no one should suffer for the sins of their ancestors [fathers]?
YOU DON'T LIKE TO READ YOUR OWN BIBLE DO YOU?
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."(Deuteronomy 24:16)
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.(Ezekiel 18:19-32)

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1469 May 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text> maybe he wanted to show abraham that #1 he was faithful to his promise and #2 that isaac the son of promise was not the one that was promised to redeem mankind but that in fact isaac himself needed to be redeemed and a substitute was provided for him.
Tricking Abe to believing his son had to die was a heartless thing to do and had nothing to do with any promise.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
now you keep bringing up death as a cruel and unjust part of life. as a Christian we see death as the door that leads to eternity and a presence with God forever. so really we all die. if God chooses to take me "early" that's ok and probably better for me.
As Bob said before, you Christians fear death just as much as we do. I never meat a person who wanted to die, unless they were suffering extreme pain in this life.

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1470 May 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>nowhere does it say that she was actually burned. there are other times when unacceptable offerings were rejected and great condemnation came upon those who offered it.
nor can you show a time when an unacceptable offering was accepted.
It says that Jeptha made a vow of a burnt offering and that he carried out his vow. Nowhere does it say that the nature of his vow was changed.
Sam The Spiritualist

Murfreesboro, TN

#1471 May 22, 2013
Two words for you "Bible People": ANCIENT ALIENS
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1472 May 22, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.
In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity.
In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.
All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.
'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Caesar by comparison is easily verified.
since you took the liberty of editing my response and freely mixing my words with those of gml to cause confusion, i will not respond to this except to point out what you have done and to reaffirm that i was simply pointing out that BE did not agree with gml.

your polluted editing;
barry wrote:
<quoted text>Givemeliberty wrote:
"Then you obviously failed to comprehend the information in the link.
Bart Ehrman the apologetic friendly agnostic is about as up to date as you can get and he admits the Josephus passages are
When I say this, I am referring to the scholarly reconstruction of what Josephus probably actually wrote, not the Testimonium Flavianum, as it is called, as it now appears in his book the Antiquities.
The Testimonium that we have in the late manuscripts of Josephus has clearly and obviously been “doctored up” by a Christian scribe, since Josephus himself (as we know, e.g., from his autobiography) never became a Christian and so did not himself believe that Jesus was the messiah who was raised from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures (as the Testimonium relates).
But Josephus did refer to Jesus, and he does give us some valuable information about him. And he is the first non-Christian source to do so. This is important historical data, as it shows that Jesus was thought of as having lived a real life by the most important Jewish historian of the first century. As such the Testimonium provides us with some much-needed confirmation of information that we can glean from our Christian sources.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/ ...
obviously BE does not believe that the TF is a fake that was added later. but rather may have been doctored later. the evidence of a different more neutral syriac version would support this theory

my continued response;
so your response was either dishonest or off topic.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1473 May 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Sorry your apologetic opinion piece was ignored.
http://dougbullock.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/i...
Doesn't appear in any earlier copies of the text.
<quoted text>
maybe you should also ignore the site that you posted to support your position.

"The specific problem with John 8:1-11 is that this story is simply missing from many" [funny how "many" doesn't mean "all"] of the earliest manuscripts. Over 100 of the manuscripts that contain the gospel of John do not contain this story, including the very earliest ones we have, which are from the early 3rd century. Likewise many of the early church fathers do not comment on the story, and a number of the translations into other languages which existed did not include it. This evidence has caused many to say that the story is not genuine.

However, the evidence is not that clear. While 100 manuscripts do not have the story , over 400 of them do. While the earlier ones do not have the story, there is evidence that these earlier manuscripts were somewhat dependent on each other, and are not independent attestations to the actual story by John. Indeed, the earliest manuscripts we have which might have contained the story go back only to the early 3rd century. This leaves almost 150 years for the story to have been dropped from John’s gospel, intentionally or unintentionally by copyists. This may well have been what happened.

Jerome, a Latin church father writing around 420 AD says,“in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”

Augustine, a Greek church father, notes the same thing, and even ascribes a motivation to the copyists who left it out.“Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith,

fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” Some did not copy this story as it might have been seen as giving permission to the wives to sin. Wow."

so how about addressing the ones that i posted and claimed contained it?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1474 May 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
The Jesus lines in Josephus were forged much later. Even if they were legit it would be mere hear say.
But the lines do not appear in earlier copies of his work. Link Barry won't click.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
And another
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html
And yet another one
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/1stC_Hist.h...
Sadly he only cares about apologetic's opinion pieces.
Oh and the doctor Bart refuses to debate with.
http://www.
gml claims that these links prove that the tf does "not appear in earlier copies of his work"

archarya, "truthbeknown..."
never says any such thing. in fact she says this:
"When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus."
apparently the earliest greek texts still contain the tf

freethought nowhere claims that earlier copies of the "antiquities" exist without the tf

godlessgeeks nowhere claims that earlier copies exist without the tf.
is it three strikes and you're out?

oops, lost the robert site.

however once again you make a claim and do not support it.

none of these sites even mention that there exists a syriac copy older than the greek copies that also contains the tf. only its version is simpler and more neutral.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1475 May 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? You do the *exact* same thing!
Do you sacrifice animals? I'd bet you don't-- so you *ignore* that part.
Do you live in a commune as Jesus commanded you to? Again-- you don't--- more ignoring by you.
You are all hypocrites to the highest degree possible.
maybe you can write something more coherent.

Hebrews 10:8-12
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Christ took away the need for animal sacrifices. they weren't sufficient any way.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1476 May 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said before, the buybull is a book of contradiction. So the fact that burnyt offering is forbidden in Lev is meaningless to me.
that's nice. so don't then argue about what the Bible says. if you won't let the Bible interpret it's self, then just leave it alone. who made you the authority to interpret it?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1477 May 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU DON'T LIKE TO READ YOUR OWN BIBLE DO YOU?
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."(Deuteronomy 24:16)
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.(Ezekiel 18:19-32)
Deuteronomy 24 is talking about civil law. vengeance nor justice should be taken out on the children because of the sins of the father.
Exekiel 18 is Talking about God's eternal judgement for sin. we are condemned for our own sin.

there are however consequences for our actions as fathers that will affect and cause others to suffer. God never said that we would not suffer because of the sins of our father. he said that we are not condemned by the sins of our fathers.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1478 May 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Tricking Abe to believing his son had to die was a heartless thing to do and had nothing to do with any promise.
<quoted text> As Bob said before, you Christians fear death just as much as we do. I never meat a person who wanted to die, unless they were suffering extreme pain in this life.
that is your opinion. Abraham had no problem with it. it probably gave him a better understanding of God. he knew that isaac was a son of promise, that many people would come from him. he trusted God's promise and was confident that God would have to raise him up.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1479 May 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It says that Jeptha made a vow of a burnt offering and that he carried out his vow. Nowhere does it say that the nature of his vow was changed.
so you are assuming that a burnt offering had to be burnt. your mistake is that a burnt offering could not be an offering if it was not acceptable and that God had already covered that possibility in the book of leviticus. he carried out his vow according to the instructions concerning the vow.
if your debt was 1,ooo,ooo$ but you didn't have 1ml$ perhaps you could pay it with 1,000 acres of land. if it is acceptable to the one whom you owed the debt. your debt is just as paid, the same as if you gave him 1,000,000$

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#1480 May 22, 2013
It appears in versions of the myth after the year 1100 but not earlier versions. Your hero Bart Ehrman the apologetic friendly agnostic states this in several of his books including misquoting Jesus.

Just accept it.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>maybe you should also ignore the site that you posted to support your position.

"The specific problem with John 8:1-11 is that this story is simply missing from many" [funny how "many" doesn't mean "all"]

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#1481 May 22, 2013
Yes they all state as I did regardless of your apologetic word games. You can even get order an accurate translation of Josephus' antiquities that does not contain the Jesus lines.

Even better? All of the versions of his works show that Nazareth didn't exist at that time :)
barry wrote:
<quoted text>gml claims that these links prove that the tf does "not appear in earlier copies of his work"

archarya, "truthbeknown..."
never says any such thing. in fact she says this:
"When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus."
apparently the earliest greek texts still contain the tf

freethought nowhere claims that earlier copies of the "antiquities" exist without the tf

godlessgeeks nowhere claims that earlier copies exist without the tf.
is it three strikes and you're out?

oops, lost the robert site.

however once again you make a claim and do not support it.

none of these sites even mention that there exists a syriac copy older than the greek copies that also contains the tf. only its version is simpler and more neutral.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#1482 May 22, 2013
The bible also says to stone your disobedient children to death.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>maybe you can write something more coherent.

Hebrews 10:8-12
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Christ took away the need for animal sacrifices. they weren't sufficient any way.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#1483 May 22, 2013
So a burnt offering isn't a burnt offering?

Your biblical fan fiction is funny :))
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so you are assuming that a burnt offering had to be burnt. your mistake is that a burnt offering could not be an offering if it was not acceptable and that God had already covered that possibility in the book of leviticus. he carried out his vow according to the instructions concerning the vow.
if your debt was 1,ooo,ooo$ but you didn't have 1ml$ perhaps you could pay it with 1,000 acres of land. if it is acceptable to the one whom you owed the debt. your debt is just as paid, the same as if you gave him 1,000,000$
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1484 May 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
It appears in versions of the myth after the year 1100 but not earlier versions. Your hero Bart Ehrman the apologetic friendly agnostic states this in several of his books including misquoting Jesus.
Just accept it.
<quoted text>
no, once again you do not post a quote from a link. i would finally call you a liar but i think you're just making it up as a result of how badly you wish it could be.
i posted a quote from BE in his book "interrupting Jesus" that clearly says that he thinks the tf was written by josephus just that it was tampered with to give a stronger support to the CC. and i posted an interview that he did where he explains it even deeper. he believes that josephus may have written the tf in a more neutral form and that someone maybe.

you have posted nothing.
btw BE is not my hero. you tried to use him to support your position that earlier copies do not contain the tf.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1485 May 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes they all state as I did regardless of your apologetic word games. You can even get order an accurate translation of Josephus' antiquities that does not contain the Jesus lines.
Even better? All of the versions of his works show that Nazareth didn't exist at that time :)
<quoted text>
but the author of that translation acknowledges that he chose to ignore the tf.
keep trying.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1486 May 22, 2013
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
No you shouldn't try to save someones legacy, you should look at it in detail and let it shink sink or swim accordingly.
agreed, and he sinks.

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 Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 8 min Eagle 12 10,769
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min Knowledge- 244,880
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" 19 min Shizle 18
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Strel 20,589
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 4 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,657
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes 8 hr Shizle 17
Santa vs. God: logic? Wed Shizle 2
More from around the web