For The Record - Tonight 8pm est

User Profile: JGraham III

JGraham III

Member Since: September 22, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • September 16, 2014 at 9:26pm

    Snooop1e pt.3:
    The Medici’s come to mind as well as one of the Boniface popes as to the very questionable practices they used. So, suffice it to say God has had to work with whatever He had both protestant and catholic. This brings us to the one universal and catholic church. It is my understanding that any and all who call on His name, who are born again of God’s Spirit are included in that august and eternal body. It is an unfortunate thing that the Roman Catholics act as if they and they alone have a corner on the truth (not saying you are this way..), but many of the comments both by you and others carry the attitude that I believe can be found in the record of the so-called Prodigal Son. This is an illustration that is applicable on so many levels. It really should be called the Forgiving Father, as both sons had somewhat against them and their actions but were both lovingly addressed by the father’s love. In one application it is the Jews (the elder brother ) not wanting to share the Father’s inheritance with the younger (the Gentiles) This is a subject for expansion at another time. But it is also somewhat applicable to the rift between the RC’s the Orthodox and the Protestants. You guys keep telling us to “come home” but the manner in which you present your case is not at all appealing (pretty judgmental actually). All I can say is I’m glad I don’t live under the active Inquisition.
    Sorry but I’m outa time: later perhaps if you are willing!

  • September 16, 2014 at 9:12pm

    Snooop1e pt. 2:
    The Word is remarkable as it and it alone is capable of interpreting itself to you, but you must be willing to accept that this is possible. It is not to say that what others have said about it are categorically wrong, but if the Word is inerrant, what do we do with well intended human beings who after all as Romans 3:4 says, ‘yea let God be true and every man a liar’? There is nothing wrong with checking ones own beliefs with those of others, because again, “there is safety in the multitude of counsellors”. I do not take lightly the task of reading and understanding the Word.
    Having said that, the Word interprets itself three general ways: 1) in the verse; 2) in the context, and 3) where a word or concept has first been introduced. Another principle to be employed is that words in the Word must be understood in light of their biblical usage. And, again, one must be aware of the ‘hebraisms’ employed throughout both OT and NT. Lastly, one must be able to recognize legitimate figures of speech wherever they are employed. These are most often spotted by the departure from what we would call ‘normal speech’. The whole argument about ‘this is my body is a classic example of not recognizing these things. But enough of this..
    I am aware also of some of the failings of Luther and especially Calvin. Funny how the RC’s love to vilify these guys but conveniently look the other way when one starts delving into the private lives of some of the popes. –> pt 3

  • September 16, 2014 at 9:01pm

    Well that is me put in my place… sorry for the sarcasm, but this conversation(if one can actually call it that) is yet another demonstration of the very weak forum this site is. It would be better if we could sit down over a donut and a cup of coffee and get to really know where the other is coming from. I have said before, I have no problem with your conversion to Catholicism, although I must wonder a wee bit of the lack of sound teaching you may have had previously, but no matter (and please take no offense).
    I did want you to tell me what is so special about the Apocrypha if indeed it is supposed to be part of the canon (the Hebrews don’t think so apparently, but then they reject the whole of the NT as well). So, what is in there that cannot be understood from the ‘received text’? Enlighten me o sage one!
    I do want to address something you said that I take as being a very flatfooted assessment of ‘how Protestants interpret scripture’. I cannot speak (nor do I want to) for the whole of Protestantism as I actually agree with your evaluation of some of the things they say, just as I take umbrage with some of the very “catholic” views of scripture and their role as the ‘one true church’.
    There are very basic principles that can be used in the understanding of scripture. It is indeed not of one’s own private interpretation, but unlike most of the catholic world, I would include the Pope in that number, just as you guys so like to include Luther

  • September 16, 2014 at 11:00am

    Me? I always try to celebrate Earth Day by the symbolic burning of a substantial piece of Styrofoam. It ‘liberates’ a fair amount of elemental carbon.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 10:56am

    Why? Perhaps for the same reason that a certain senator from the great state of Arizona hasn’t been sent packing. The go along to get along, good ol’ boy culture of DC is the culprit most likely.

  • [1] September 16, 2014 at 10:40am

    Obviously it is the remains of some ancient edifice complex..

  • [2] September 15, 2014 at 9:43pm

    Same wild look… the only thing missing are the spiders. Glad for that.

  • [2] September 15, 2014 at 9:04pm

    Your assertion that Christianity is based on fear couldn’t farther from the truth. “for God has not given us the spirit of fear but of love and of power and of a sound mind” This actually implies that one who does not have the Spirit of God (you perhaps?) does not have a sound mind.
    Another for you: speaking of Jesus Christ, “and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” Christians who actually believe what the Word says do not fear death.
    Ancient Egypt is an excellent example of a culture that was bound by the fear of death. They denied death through their elaborate methods of preserving dead persons; today many deny their own mortality by denying the existence of God. While you may not actually do this, what do you have to look forward to other than a hole in the ground after 70-80 years?

  • [2] September 15, 2014 at 8:51pm

    Agreed! Anyone who has become a parent can relate to the sacrificing of one’s life for the sake of another especially when the little one is ‘more helpless’ than what would be considered the norm. I give you and any others who have ‘special needs’ children great credit. May God richly bless you all.

  • [6] September 15, 2014 at 8:45pm

    Glad to find someone else who was wondering if the durn thing could fly..

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] September 15, 2014 at 8:37pm

    Here we go again with the FFRF’s sterling impersonation of a t**d in a punchbowl. Another acronym that applies to these people is c.s. If they had to stand before any of those players and tell them themselves to remove the crosses they’d likely p**p their panties.

  • September 15, 2014 at 8:30pm

    Snooop1e pt. 2.
    The Word in its original form was/is inerrant, but no serious person would consider a modern translation, done by anyone you choose to be inerrant. This includes the KJV. It was rendered from what is known as the Stephens text, done sometime in the late 1500′s by a man named Erasmus. There are numerous textual discoveries since that time, among which are many of the Aramaic copies that predate the manuscripts used by Erasmus. At no time did I mean to imply that a critical text was equal to or greater than the Word itself. As far as the other things you said, this I would ask: What is in the Apocrypha that makes it worthy of being canonical? Should we then also include books like the Book of Enoch, which is clearly referenced in the book of Jude? Where does this stop? With the so called Gnostic Gospels, which are clearly whacked out? Enlighten me please.

  • September 15, 2014 at 8:21pm

    I actually looked up the Apocrypha (Wikipedia) and found some interesting things posted there. 1) Luther didn’t ‘remove’ the Apocrypha from what is known as the Luther Bible; he placed them in an ‘intertestamental section’ between the OT and the NT. His statements regarding the Apocrypha closely follow those of Jerome (who lived in the 4th Century) who followed the practice of his day that being “if books were not in the Hebrew Canon, they were not considered canonical by the Early Church or at least that was the position Jerome took. Not all early church leaders concurred. The consensus of many of these early church leaders was that the Apocrypha, while not canonical, nevertheless were worthy of being read in churches. This was the position of Luther as well as the compilers of the Geneva Bible. The RC’s affirmed the Apocrypha to be canonical in or around 1546, a rather late date if all that they decide is infallible (sorry, I couldn’t resist).
    Now to the issue of a critical text: I never said such a text bore the same weight as the Word itself; they are an attempt by scholars to reconstruct what the original autographs MAY have looked like. They are tool, used by scholars to gain what they believe to be the most complete text this side of the originals. Maybe they succeed, maybe they don’t. All modern translations and versions rely on one or more of these works.
    Thank you for correcting the use of infallible and inerrant. to pt 2.

  • September 15, 2014 at 10:16am

    ‘Morning! I should add to my reply that from re-reading your statement to me that I am not sure you fully understand what a “critical text” is. The word critical comes from the same sense we use when we say someone critiques a work or some other written document. It is not critical in the sense that it is finding fault with it or in some other way attempting to diminish it. All biblical scholars use critical texts; the one that gave rise to the KJV is known as the Stephens text or the Received Text. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that even Roman Catholic scholars use them, as they likely do.
    The purpose of a critical text is to attempt to get as close to the ‘original’ as possible. There are no known original manuscripts in existence or at least to the best knowledge of scholars so the academics try to reconstruct them from examination of the oldest or best preserved or most complete ones available. These attempts usually only matter to the Bible-heads and leave many parishioners or congregants out. You can see the variations in these texts if you have an interlinear of the NT. It most likely will be KJV as most lexical aids are keyed to KJV and the Strong’s Concordance. Have a great week and all that!

  • September 14, 2014 at 10:50pm

    Snooop1e pt. 2.
    You may have a point worth considering re: the omission of the Apocrypha, but you should also know that the segment of the Early Church considered by many scholars to be the most devoted to the preservation of the Scriptures were the Aramaic speaking believers. The oldest surviving texts written in Aramaic often do NOT include the books of 1Peter through Revelation. By your arguments for the truthfulness of your denomination, should they be excluded because many of them likely knew the Apostles or perhaps the Church Fathers? The beauty of the Word is that it will show what errors there are or inclusions or even if an omitted portion really belongs in the accepted text, but it takes a person willing to accept that they may not have had it ‘right’ and therefore must change what they believe.
    You RC’s that post here all are certain you have it all nailed down, all the while mocking Protestants with epithets such as ‘sola scriptura’, etc.etc. but you will never admit that you just might have a few things off base. I know better than any that I don’t know it all, but this I do know that what I believe produces the results the Word says I should have, and that is good enough for me. Have a great week, and be like the Bereans who “received the Word with all readiness of mind AND searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so”.

  • September 14, 2014 at 10:39pm

    Here we go again… The Bible as originally given is infallible; fallible men, from the First Century on down to today have had to do the best they could with the accurate handling of it. That includes the Early Church as well as all who have fallen in between them and us. If you care to look, the Holy Spirit via the hand of the Apostle Paul gave the steps that always be followed “on the way down” and they are found in 2 Timothy 1:15 (leaders of the church turn away from the teachings of ‘Paul’ a.k.a. what is found in the Church Epistles and other books that have his ‘signature’.); the second is 2Tim 2:18 (where leaders begin to err concerning the truth). The third is in 2Tim 3:7-8 (where once error has been codified into ‘doctrine’ leaders resist the truth when offered it ) and fourth and lastly, in 2Tim 4:4 where they turn (as in 180 degrees away) away from the truth and are turned to fables (usually things that are said to be in the Word but are nowhere to be found there). No one is immune from these perils and resting complacently behind some denominational boundary assuming that one has the truth because it was handed down by ‘infallible’ men is one of the greatest traps. This is because when a person believes they have the Christian walk all figured out that they cease to be vigilant concerning the Truth.
    to pt. 2

  • September 14, 2014 at 4:36pm

    There are many biblical scholars that believe that the order of the Church Epistles was laid down by Paul himself, as there is a good reason for the order in which the are invariably found in any old manuscript. There is a message within the message if you will. The epistles follow an order of 1) doctrine 2) reproof 3) correction, repeated once and then ending with doctrine in 1 &2 Thessalonians which deals primarily with Christ’s coming again, for which there will be no reproof or correction necessary as He will be here in person.
    The order of these books has never been found to vary from what all translations have, except for a few very old ones that have Thessalonians at the first, followed by the order of Romans; Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians. Not what I would call random chance or some other non-biblical supposition.

  • September 14, 2014 at 4:26pm

    The city of Corinth ca. AD 50 (about the time Paul & Co. showed up) had a large population and was a major city on the sea lanes that Rome used to keep tabs on their Mediterranean empire. Corinth had roughly equal population that spoke Latin, or Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic. Whatever language the epistle was originally written would of necessity require near immediate translation into the other two languages, so there you have two translations. Of course they could be compared to the original autograph and corrected if necessary by Paul himself, so likely errors would be scotched quickly.
    There is a scholarly practice used today, from which virtually all new versions/translations are taken and that is the use of “critical texts” which are compilations made from the many available manuscripts, most of which are not complete in some way. The variations are noted, and surprise! virtually all variations do not make serious differences in doctrinal matters, neither for the Roman Church, Orthodoxy or Protestant. Those differences come in the varying ways people interpret what they are reading, usually forgetting to allow the scripture itself to tell you the meaning.
    It should be noted that most scholars will tell you the “original” language NT scripture was written was Greek but some hold out for Aramaic. Not many will tell you Latin was the original, but many Old Latin texts predate the Greek and Aramaic copies of the same portion.

  • [1] September 13, 2014 at 9:49pm

    Ah yes, another mean spirited meddling atheist strikes and the weak-kneed give in to them yet another time. Tyranny of the minority.

  • [3] September 13, 2014 at 7:47pm

    Actually the wild turkey allegedly is quite smart and somewhat difficult to catch. I am not a hunter so what I said is hearsay. This may be what Mr. Franklin was alluding to.
    The modern turkey is closely aligned evolutionarily speaking with most liberals and those who choose to associate with them. Dumber than a box of doorknobs, they are, prescioussss!

123 To page: Go