If you wouldn’t mind, would you please email the response that you said you’d come up with regarding the questions brought up earlier?

Ggreaves103@comcast.net

I know you said you’d respond back in the day, but I haven’t seen anything yet & I don’t know whether it just wasn’t posted or you forgot. Either way, I’d still be most interested in hearing it, sir.

1. The ESV, NASB, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, and HSCB all proclaim the same truth. Some of these are paraphrases and for sake of studying, I would stay away from the ones that are. Though you can get some insight, you are dependent upon someone elses perspective (Someone stated that going to original greek would be the best, the only problem with that is we are missing the original manuscripts so you are still dependent upon the scribes copying of a cetrain set of scriptures). You can trust the word for word bibles about as much you trust your heart to beat the next second. Unless you are saying your last goodbyes because of fear of your heart stopping, I would also trust the word for word translations.

2. There is much history behind the different word for word translations and it will take up to much band width for it. However, many of the translations were written throughout history. We have discovered some extra manuscripts in the last few hundred years and because of that some of the translations were written. The truth of the Gospel in each of those translations remain the same. Christ born of a virgin, died on a cross, raised from the dead, and salvation is by faith in Him.

3. Nothing was reinterpreted. The Old Testemant has been the same one for the past 2500 years or so. Christians took the OT that was recognized by Jews and brought it forward. It is also a fact that what we have in the NT was agreed upon around 100 AD. Many of the Elders who were appointed by the Apostles themselves were still around and it was clear what they agreed should be circulated.

4. True there is One Lord (Jesus), one Faith (salvation by grace through faith apart frome works). and One Baptism (a baptism into the church where Christ is the head, this is not referring to water).

5. We all embrace one doctrine that is why we stand strong against, Islam, Mormons, JW’s, Buddahist, and any other religion or cult. That doctrine is the death, burial and ressurection of our Lord Jesus. Why do you expect more than this? We agree on the doctrine of Christ and we divide over stuff that is more sacremental or practice not doctrine.

6. No everything else is not anti-biblical. Let me ask you a question. What if your mother and aunt were talking about your great grandmother and one says, her hair was black and the other her hair was brown. Now would you say, well since you can’t agree my great grandmother must have not existed? The answer is no, that is a non-essential. We disagree on small matters. Some people believe you shouldn’t dance in worship others say you shouldn’t use instruments. Some believe you should only meet in a house, others say you should have a group of elders running the church, other believes the congregation should lead the church. Some believe you should preach topically others says expositorily, get my point?

So let me ask you a few questions.

1. What do you believe of our current bible and where do you get the information?

2. What is the one doctrine that we should prescribe to and where do you get this information?

3. Which “version” do you prescribe to and why?

4. Finally the greatest question of the day. How can man be saved from the wrath of God? I need exact details. If someone asks you “what must I do to be saved” what would your answer be?

In love, all I am saying is that we don’t know what we don’t know about how the scriptures we study came to be included in the modern Bible(s). It is historical fact that many political decisions were made during these early “conclaves” to determine exactly what would be placed into early versions of the Bible and what would be left out. I sincerely believe that it is difficult, if not impossible, to solve any puzzle if some of the pieces are missing (or distorted). (MN: Whoa Sparky! You just made a fistful of assumptions and passed them off as facts. Care to back up and support these - and the ones that follow? )

The council of Nicea was but one of many councils in which Biblical canon was discussed, interpreted, reinterpreted, added or discarded. I am very interested in learning about how the Bible came into being. How can we all agree on the Bible if there are so many versions of it? Why so many interpretations (and many that widely vary)?

These questions are also related to my concern/confusion over the mere presence of denominationalism in Christendom. I do not and cannot subscribe to the “any church/denomination will do” theory. The Bible speaks of “one Lord. one Faith. one Baptism” which alludes to unity in Christ. Should there not be a single doctrine that all Christians embrace? Isn’t anything less anti-Biblical? Again, I do not presume to have all the answers, just a ton of questions…

(MN: Interesting comment. Anyone care to start? )

(MN: An interesting suggestion. But I’m not sure I presented anything that requires a defense on her part. And remember, the attacks are against me, not her. The folks who think she should leave really haven’t been particularly vocal.

However, if she’s in a good mood, I may ask her if she is interested in doing that. It might be interesting and it might even get her engaged in the whole blogging thing. I may ask her. )

I will respond to your posts either Thursday or Friday. I’ll be at a business function all day tomorrow, which will preclude me from visiting this site…

All good. Now, how should one approach books that were “supposed” to teach Christianity and faith based principles that were written by known slave holders?

Seeing that our faith is to impact our politics, I think a point worth considering,though, is the issue of where exactly does one draw the line if they wish to use the law to correct social ills…….or gain social justice.

For example, if the laws are used to correct social ills in the secular realm (i.e. racial inequality, minuimum wage, etc), would it stop there or naturally procedd to the religious realm & anything therin that would be considered injustices/inequalites?

What if someone considers it to be an equality that evolution (which is also religious in nature) is taught in schools but creationism is not? Would it be wise to bring the law into the situation/even out the playing field by mandating the teaching of both in the classroom, as well as every other worldview known so that ALL sides are heard?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/12/teaching_the_bible_increases_at_us_public_schools/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html

What if one were to consider churches being free from tax-excempt status as something unfair, since many of them operate like buisnesses anyway, & that it’s an injustice for those who do not claim to be religious & yet must still pay?

Or if a private institution burns down, such as a historic black PRIVATE church & government refuses to get involved in the restoration of the building, would that be an injustice worthy of getting the law involved in?

For examples:

http://about.com/religion/hubsearch.htm?SUName=religion&terms=Should+Churches+remain+tax-exempt%3F

-No one is saying laws are bad across the board, or that no laws should be made since they don’t change hearts.

*That’s good to have some clarity…

-Rather, I am saying that racism is not erased by laws.

*I don’t think the laws that were implemented to address racist practices, were implemented in order to necessarily cleanse the hearts of those who were perpetrators of racism, rather, they were created to stifle some of their racist practices against fellow citizens.

-Certainly we should make it illegal for government organizations to endorse racist behavior.

*I realize this…

-However, laws aren’t going to make the racist like me anymore than a law will make the child molester not want to molest children.

*Yeah, that’s for certain. But it doesn’t take away from the necessity of having those laws.

-It will simply make the racist/molestor take more care in what they do.

*Which in a fallen world that is the best you can ask for…

-Bottom line: No law MAKES a person want to do right.

*I never argued that. However, it can be a deterrent, to where it will curve the actions of those who don’t want to do right.

-It makes it more risky and not worth their while to do wrong.

*Again, I realize this…

-And more laws are not always the answer.

*That’s true too, especially if they are immoral laws, or unjust laws.

-You are actually addressing a different issue

*How so?

- the law as the restraint on man’s fallen nature.

*Maybe so, but I still feel that despite it all, my entry is still relevant, seeing as how some folks always put forth arguments concerning the changing of one’s heart, via Christ, instead of by way of the law(s)-which betrays from my end, folks who will go over the meadow and through the woods, in order to justify why they themselves aren’t socially active.

It gives them somewhat of an escape.

-And not all aspects of our fallen nature can be addressed by a law.

*No where in my post did I suggest, or imply that…

-If you try, you will start wandering down the road of hate-speech and hate-crimes. These are “laws” that attempt to address heart issues and end up simply silencing those who would call sin a sin and create a focus on classes of people.

*I hear what you’re saying, but not all hate laws maybe unwarranted, especially if you’re trying to send home a message about a particular type of crime, based on the motives of the perpetrator, or perpetrators.

I realize some may disagree with this assessment of mine, and may produce good arguments on behalf of their position-then so be it. I myself am not all too passionate about this angle of the conversation…

-The question becomes: How much of our nature is the law to attempt to address? )

*As much as it can, based on the depravity of human beings.

-Again, different issue.

*Well, it may be, but it is still relevant, based on my above stance on why it is relevant.

-In fact, it’s because of the heart that most valid laws are inacted to begin with.

*What are you trying to say here?

-But laws are a reflection of the morality of the society.

*Okay?

-They don’t create a moral society.

*Never said it had to…

-As we leave the basics of Christianity further behind, we discover that our laws become more twisted, less effective, and much more constraining with respect to personal freedoms.

*Not necessarily. There have been times in the history of this country, where biblical truths were more so upheld than today, but yet there were laws and actions, that were “twisted, less effective, and much more constraining with respect to personal freedoms,” especially as it relates to certain citizens.

As the scripture said, there’s nothing new under the sun.

-Examples of laws reflecting society:

*Okay, this should be good!

-1. The law says we can kill a child up to the point he escapes the womb

*This is a law that ought to be contested.

-2. The law is saying (in places like Canada) that it is a crime to speak out against homosexuality

*This is a law that ought to be contested as well.

-3. The law is saying that there is a difference between a white killing a white and calling him a name before he kills him and a white killing a black and calling him a name before he kills him.

*On the surface, and in many instances, this law ought to be contested; however, there may be some distinctions we must first consider:

For instance, if I were a black person, killing another black person, because he or she looked at me the wrong way; wouldn’t allow me to rob him, or her successfully; don’t want any witnesses after a crime had been enacted; I love to kill; and call them a racial epithet, or a vile curse word in the prosecution of the crime, even though the murder was and is horrendous-the motivations don’t equal to that of what they may classify as a “hate” crime.

Now, if I, as a black person, intentionally sought out black people for murder, solely because they are black, and the fact that I may despise black people, then you are dealing with a special kind of case here. Why? Because according to this type of criminal individual, their passion for killing, isn’t relegated to degenerate passions that can be equally applied across the board towards all human beings, rather, their passion for killing is solely relegated to those who look a certain way, or are members of a particular ethnic group, race, or nationality, gender, or whatever, despite their class, disposition, culpability, circumstances and demeanor, hence a “hate” crime.

Likewise, if a white person kills another white person, and uses a vile name to describe that white victim, it can be different in the sense that the murdering of the white victim, by the white perpetrator, may not invoke racist internalizations and imagery that may be invoked when a white perpetrator attacks a black victim.

In other words, a white perpetrator may attack a fellow white citizen, for the very same reasons that were initially given the black perpetrator, who may indiscriminately murder black victims. Or they may do so, because they hate other white people with a passion.

Likewise, again, a white person may murder a black person, and may use vile language against that black person, denoting a motivation that the murder being committed, was only committed, or given an extra burst of passion, because of the racial make-up of the individual being victimized, instead of that individuals character, demeanor or disposition.

This means that any black person can be a target, not because of robbery; being in the wrong place at the wrong time; acting foolish; saying the wrong things; etc.-but because they were born in the wrong uniform.

So even though one can argue that more laws ought not to be enacted, because of their possible unjust and contradictory natures, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that every motivation for an unjust act is comparable, despite the outcomes being the same.

-4. A Christian landlord is not allowed to refuse renting an apartment or house to a unmarried couple or a homosexual couple based on his view of right and wrong.

*If such a law is passed in the favor of a Christian landlord, with such beliefs, then it is possible that there may be a slippery slope in the extreme direction of not renting a house or an apartment, to someone whose ethnicity is despised, based on their religious convictions.

-Again, these are a reflection of our fallen and increasingly corrupt society rather than a reflection of a pursuit of a righteous society.

*I understand where you’re coming from, however, it really doesn’t matter whether or not this society is deluged with biblical standards, all the way to the highest forms of government, or not deluged with these standards. The simple fact of the matter is-along as you have human beings (whether they be saved, or unsaved), you will always have laws that are inevitably unjust, and unfair, as well as contradictory.

This is what human beings produce; this is what saved folks will produce, for no matter how much they seek to do good, because of their natures, evil will always be present with them.

In the end, we can only do the best we can do, on that end.

-By the way, what, exactly, is social justice as opposed to criminal justice?

*When I use the term “social justice,” I am referring to an array of social injustices, which includes criminal behavior, that may need to be contested…

-Does everyone have a RIGHT to affordable housing?

*Everyone has a right to not being discriminated against, when it comes to the affordability of housing. If an upscale community is offered housing, and rent that is affordable, only for a poorer, or more struggling community, to have housing that is less affordable, then I believe that these laws ought to be contested, because as Christians, we ought to fight against such injustices, for the sake of fairness and equality.

Does the Constitution gives us this “right,” well, maybe not, but the Constitution, as was originally written, didn’t guarantee a lot of rights for certain folks. This reality didn’t mean that laws ought not have been put into place, so as to guarantee those rights, for those citizens, despite what the Constitution mandated as being “rights.”

In the end, our faith should be more substantial in determining what is ultimately right, or wrong, and not some man made laws.

-Do we all have a right to a living wage?

*We may not have a right to a living wage, according to the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that as Christians, we ought not support efforts to even the playing field, when it comes to fair and equitable wage distribution, especially for certain types of work, whether it be blue collar, white collar, or no collar at all.

-Does everyone have the right to a job?

*Everyone doesn’t have a “right” to a job, according to the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean that as Christians, we ought not fight against employment discrimination, where we can find it.

-When is one person to rich

*You can never be too rich…

-and not giving their fair share?

*If they’re not paying the amount of taxes comparable to their income…

-What is a fair share and who determines what a fair share is?

*I don’t know, you tell me…

-Should the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the poor?

*I personally don’t think so, however, where much is given, much is required, but now I feel we’re going off at the deep end with this discussion.

-Why?

*Why what?

-Should an employer be required to hire certain numbers of ethnic and racial groups and make sure they are working in all segments of their company?

*An employer shouldn’t have to, but if the workers of those races and ethnic groups are qualified to work in all segments of a company, and those in power are thwarting such participation from these groups-then I feel that this to, ought to be contested, even by those who are Christians.

-Having asked all of these questions,

*Okay?

-I realize I have likely opened a political floodgate.

*Man, I know you have, which is why I believe many of the questions to be gratuitous, especially in light of my basic position on the matter…

-And that’s fine.

*Whatever you say.

-Perhaps I can create another posting to handle it if readers wish to discuss it. Afterall, our Christianity should have an impact on our politics.

*I realize this…

-Otherwise, what’s the point? Just become a Jehovah’s Witness.

*You’ve completely lost me here. Are you telling me that it is mandated for true Christians to become politically active?

(MN: No one is saying laws are bad across the board, or that no laws should be made since they don’t change hearts. Rather, I am saying that racism is not erased by laws. Certainly we should make it illegal for government organizations to endorse racist behavior. However, laws aren’t going to make the racist like me anymore than a law will make the child molester not want to molest children. It will simply make the racist/molestor take more care in what they do.

You are actually addressing a different issue - the law as the restraint on man’s fallen nature. And not all aspects of our fallen nature can be addressed by a law. If you try, you will start wandering down the road of hate-speech and hate-crimes. These are “laws” that attempt to address heart issues and end up simply silencing those who would call sin a sin and create a focus on classes of people. The question becomes: How much of our nature is the law to attempt to address? )

I’m not going to wait for a change of heart, before I advocate for the unborn, the dispossessed, etc. If I were to wait for that, I’d be waiting forever, seeing as how that will never be the case. This is why laws against murder are instituted, because it takes into consideration those folks, regardless of their heart changes or not-who will commit murder, due to their fallen nature.

(MN: Again, different issue. In fact, it’s because of the heart that most valid laws are inacted to begin with. But laws are a reflection of the morality of the society. They don’t create a moral society. As we leave the basics of Christianity further behind, we discover that our laws become more twisted, less effective, and much more constraining with respect to personal freedoms.

Again, these are a reflection of our fallen and increasingly corrupt society rather than a reflection of a pursuit of a righteous society. )

Don’t get me wrong, I hear where folks like you two are coming from, but in the end, there must be a balanced approach when it comes to this type of issue, dealing with social justice and the gospel.

(MN: By the way, what, exactly, is social justice as opposed to criminal justice?

Having asked all of these questions, I realize I have likely opened a political floodgate. And that’s fine. Perhaps I can create another posting to handle it if readers wish to discuss it. Afterall, our Christianity should have an impact on our politics. Otherwise, what’s the point? Just become a Jehovah’s Witness. )

Prior to my conversion I was heavily into the Black this and Black that movement. I still see room where Black believers can still address some social issues but find myself in agreement with the thrust of your post.

My brother was the head of the NOI for a short while over here in the UK, and I was influenced by that group.

Even Mel once commented about the oratory skills of Farrakhan and how one can be stirred by his talks; but then the question remains, does the stirring mean that Black people are encouraged to seek the Face of Christ? The answer would have to be an emphatic “No!” By God’s grace, it was when I saw the sin beneath the veneer of the Black movement that I started to seek the Lord in earnest.

It seems strange now, but when I was complaining about all the injustices I perceived had been perpetrated on us Black people, I perversely was unable to see my own sin before a thrice Holy God.

I use the name Reformed Cushite more for the Black unbeliever as a message and witness. Cushite says yes Black brothers; I am not oblivious to some of the pain and torment of our history. “Reformed” says that the solution is only found in what the Bible teaches about Sin and Salvation; “Reformed” says I reject the majority of what goes on today in the so called Black Churches and finally “Reformed” says true emancipation for us will not be found with Jesse Jackson, Farrakhan or Mr Long; but will be found through a proper understanding of the mission of God’s Son , the ONLY Saviour, Jesus Christ.

This is too often forgotten because we put our color before the cause .What is the cause you may ask? To be ambassadors for Jesus.I may be in the minority here but I don’t think it is ok to put pictures of MLK and the black national flag in what is often called the “black church”.I also feel celebrating black history month in church is inapproprite as well.The only name to be exalted behind the pulpit is that of Jesus.The reason the church is in such a mess is because we have forgotten this simple truth.No I am not saying ignore your culture or deny the beauty of God’s diversity.However I don’t think the church is the place for this kind of thing. Cultural goals often take the priority over what should be the goals of the church. Like witnessing and teaching God’s people how to rightly divide the truth and other biblical principles.

We are more concerned with starting aerobics classes ,computer labs,job programs and sports teams.The people in the community around our churches will be in good physical and financial shape but still on the way to hell. Oh I know we start these programs with the intention of telling them about Jesus but that doesn’t happen.When we preach a “social gospel” or a change my condition but not my heart gospel.We really are cheapening the blood of the Lamb.

Man, the gospel is really simple can’t we just stick to that. it’s not entertaining but it sure is effective.

1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

But even a deacon is supposed to root what they do in THE WORD OF GOD. And they are not exempt from working on behalf of spreading the message of Christ during their work.

If Long had used the Lord’s name, he’d end up twisting and abusing it.

Eddie Long becomes more like Jesse Jackson every day. It’s like Prosperity Jesse .