Posted on 04/28/2011 6:13:54 PM PDT by publius321
It was interesting to watch Bill O’Reilly begin to turn hostile toward Franklin Graham regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. He pressed Graham to answer questions regarding the fate of people who live “good” lives but die without accepting Christ as their savior.
Franklin seemed to handle the question with much more back-bone than his father Billy Graham. (See Larry King interview when King pressed on the same question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozjLaoPrcQ0&NR=1
The Rev, Franklin answered the question by saying that Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me”.
O’Reilly pressed further and became more agitated as he used hypothetical situations that many typically use - such as holocaust victims. (No, he didn’t actually ask about the pigmies.) I will leave it to you as to whether you want to see the interview and care to see how Graham did in holding firm. It will be relayed tonight at 11pm and on youtube I’m sure by tomorrow.
What I was pleased to hear is that it is irrelevant how –WE- feel about it. If we hold ourselves out to be followers of Christ, we do not get to pick and choose which parts of His word we accept based upon our own tastes. What kind of faith can one have if they believe not in the authenticity of the scriptures in their own Bible? Yes Bill O’Reilly, the Catholic Bible still has Jesus claiming to be the ONLY way. Catholic though I am not, I do still believe they hold themselves out to be THE Christian Church.
I’m sure some here saw the interview. I found it interesting how Bill was clearly holding back anger and I feel that if Graham had tried to elaborate further, Bill might have gone on one off his famous tirades. Based upon Bill’s apparent background, I’m surprised he isn’t RELIEVED that it is not by merit that we are saved but by grace. I know for one that I have reason to be glad.
I also want to say WELCOME! To those of you who joined the CB Patriot Project at cbPatriot.com. We have received some wonderful letters and referrals to groups such as Tea Parties across the country.
If you’re not familiar, the CB Patriot Project is a plan to keep us in communication with one another when the inevitable end result of government prodigality and perpetual counterfeiting by the Federal Reserve come to full manifestation. We have only heretofore seen the foreshock. The TREASON of it is in the fact that the destruction of wealth is deliberate.
Editor in post 97: The Pharisees were satanic
oookay -- so you say...
Its a matter of simple semantics, not theology. Latin was very adept at applying existing words and phrases to new objects. Unlike English they rarely adopted foreign words. The Romans recognized the Jewish high priests as the equivalent of their own high priests and applied their term.
Note that in our discussion we have all applied the same term "high priest" to both the Roman and Jewish clergy. That doesn't make us pagans, does it?
"Simple semantics"? You're rendering the high priest of the true God on the same level as high priests of other religions? Note that the original text of the Bible was not Latin; there were three languages used, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
"Pontifex maximus" Its a matter of simple semantics, not theology. Latin was very adept at applying existing words and phrases to new objects. Unlike English they rarely adopted foreign words. The Romans recognized the Jewish high priests as the equivalent of their own high priests and applied their term. Note that in our discussion we have all applied the same term "high priest" to both the Roman and Jewish clergy. That doesn't make us pagans, does it?
Like it or not, the Romans did exactly what they wanted to and they decided for themselves that, in their language, the Vulgate Latin, Kohen haGadol was the equivalent of Pontifex Maximus. The Romans were a stubborn bunch and when the decided to label or name something it stuck. If you don't like it, take it up with them.
So the Romans' stubbornness is stronger than God's truth?
Like it or not, the Romans did exactly what they wanted to and they decided for themselves that, in their language, the Vulgate Latin, Kohen haGadol was the equivalent of Pontifex Maximus. The Romans were a stubborn bunch and when the decided to label or name something it stuck. If you don't like it, take it up with them
Look, this isn't about theology or about what you or I believe, it's about the Latin language Etymology. You might not like it, but the Romans drew the parallels and chose to extend the term Pontifex Maximus generically to all "high priests". That linguistic flexibility was later extended to include the Christian bishop of Rome. Deal with it.
No, it's not "linguistic flexibility". Things like the Reformation occurred in attempts to "deal with it", albeit not utterly decisively. The Romans' sacrileges still can't bury the truth.
Look, this isn't about theology or about what you or I believe, it's about the Latin language Etymology. You might not like it, but the Romans drew the parallels and chose to extend the term Pontifex Maximus generically to all "high priests". That linguistic flexibility was later extended to include the Christian bishop of Rome. Deal with it
By your standards you are a sacrilegious pagan for using the English word God when referring to the Christian Deity because of its pagan origins. Give it a rest. You are one troll I choose not to feed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.