[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Rebuilding a Conservative Movement I
Source: Sultan Knish blog
URL Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/201 ... s+The+Stories+Behind+the+News%
Published: Sep 25, 2015
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Post Date: 2015-09-27 19:03:36 by Rufus T Firefly
Keywords: None
Views: 41039
Comments: 199

The trouble with the donor class, by and large, is that it is resistant to change because it doesn't want to change. The Democratic and Republican donor classes donate for their business interests, but the Democratic donor class has a radical edge. Groups like the Democracy Alliance want a fundamental transformation of the country. And they understand how they can make money off that.

There are too many Republican single issue donors who are fairly liberal on everything outside that issue. And there are too many big business interests and financial folks who live in major cities and only differ from liberals in their economic policy.

The trouble with fiscally conservative and socially liberal is that the left is not a buffet. You don't get to pick a combo identity. Fiscally liberal follows socially liberal as day follows night. All those single people, their babies need assorted government benefits. No amount of lectures on "liberty" will change that. Austrian economics is never going to displace food stamps for the socially insecure.

A lot of the Republican donor class would like to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the fun of a liberal society without having to pay the bill. It wants cheap Third World labor without wanting to cover their health care, the school taxes and all the other social welfare goodies.

But it doesn't work that way. There's no free ride.

Yes, they can move to a township where the property taxes are killer, and dump their pool guy and tree trimmer and maid in some city to live in housing projects at the expense of that city's shrinking middle class and working class. And it can work for a while, until all those cheap laborers get community organized and the organizers take over the city. And then the state.

And then there are housing projects in the township, everyone is plugged into the same statewide school tax scheme and the left runs everything and taxes everything.

The wealthier members of the donor class can outrun this process longer. Or just live with it while funding groups that promote "Liberty", the way the Koch Brothers do, but the bill always comes due.

You can't outrun the political implications of poverty in a democracy. And you can't stop those political trends without addressing the social failures that cause them. A socially liberal society will become politically and economically liberal. Importing Third World labor also imports Third World politics, which veer between Marxism and Fascism all the way to the Islamic Jihad.

Everything is connected. You can't choose one without the other.

We're not going to have some libertarian utopia in which everyone gets high and lives in communes, but doesn't bother with regulations and taxes. The closest thing you can find to that is Africa. Nor are we going to be able to import tens of millions of people from countries where working class politics is Marxist without mainstreaming Marxism as a political solution in major cities across America.

People are not divisible that way. Human society is not a machine you can break down.

The left has fundamentally changed America. Much of the donor class hesitates to recognize this or prefers to believe that it can isolate the bad changes from the good changes. It doesn't work that way.

Getting the kind of fiscal conservatism that a lot of the donor class wants requires making fundamental changes to the country. You can't just tinker with economic regulations in a country where schoolchildren are taught to demand taxes on plastic bags to save the planet or where a sizable portion of the population is dependent on the government. Those tactics can rack up ALEC victories while losing the war.

Fiscal conservatism requires a self-reliant population that believes in the value of honesty and hard work. Those are not compatible with social liberalism or casual Marxism. Individually, yes. It's possible to make money while being a leftist. But spread across a large population with different classes and races, those individual quirks will not be replicated. And you can't create that population with slogans. You have to be able to shape national values, not just economic policy.

That's the hard truth.

There are no single issue solutions. At best there are single issue stopgaps. But the left is not a single issue organization. It has narrowed down most of its disagreements and combined its deck of agendas. Its coalition supports a large range of programs from across the deck. It's still possible to be a pro-abortion Republican, but the political representation of pro-life Democrats is disappearing.

You can be a Republican who supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but a Democrat who says anything too critical about Islam has a limited future in his party at any national level. The same is true across the spectrum. Kim Davis is a Democrat. How much of a future do Democrats opposed to gay marriage have? Meanwhile it's possible to be a pro-gay marriage Republican.

The Republican "big tent" is more a symptom of ideological disarray, as we've seen in this primary season, by a party that doesn't really know what it believes, than of tolerance. But the left has taken over the Democratic Party and made its agendas into the only acceptable ones.

There are still some national Democrats hedging weakly on gun control and environmentalism, but they're going to be purged. Their party will abandon them and Republicans will squeeze them out.

A lot of the donor class is really seeking an accommodation with the left. The election was warped when the Koch brothers decided to find common ground with the ACLU on freeing drug dealers. They dragged some good candidates in with them and down with them destroying their credibility on key issues.

You can't have an accommodation with the left. The left isn't seeking a compromise. It wants it all.

The left has to be fought all the way or surrendered to all the way. There's no middle ground here regardless of what philosophical objections are introduced, because that is what the left is doing. It's easily observable just in Obama's two terms.

The left has defined the terms of battle. And its terms are total control over everything.

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Single issues can be important and it's good for people to pick one or two things to focus on, but that has to come with the understanding that there can be no accommodation with it in any other area. An organization fighting gun control is doing important work, but its backers should never fall under the illusion that the 2nd amendment can be maintained if the left wins on all the other fronts.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". The quote is true today in all its implications as it was then. We must have a conservative movement that is united in a common front or we will be dragged down one by one. There will be no conservative issue islands left to stand on if the red tide comes in.

The final point is that it is not enough to resist. That's just delaying the inevitable. Even the strongest resistance can be worn away with time. If the left can't win directly, it focuses on the next generation. If cultural barriers are in the way, it goes for population resettlement, as it's doing in parts of this country and Europe. There is no such thing as an impregnable issue island.

Winning means pushing forward. Winning means advocating for change, not just fighting to keep what we have. Winning means thinking about the sort of free society that we want. Winning means having a vision to build, not just resist. Winning means advancing forward.

To do that, we have to accept that fundamental change is necessary. Right now we're fighting a losing battle. We're trying to keep the tide out, when we must become the tide.

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

Money quote:

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 179.

#1. To: Rufus T Firefly (#0)

You can't be pro-life and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-business and pro-Obama. You can't be pro-Israel and pro-Obama. You can't be fiscally conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be socially conservative and pro-Obama. You can't be anything less than full leftist and pro-Obama.

The left has to be fought totally or not at all.

Well, if that's the agenda, then you cannot win as the right.

Pro-life is a moral necessity. Right now there is no pro-life party either. Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie. That means that there cannot be a RAPE EXCEPTION. To abort the baby born of rape is to commit premeditated murder. That's just a fact, and there can be no compromise on it.

Now, if you take that correct and true stance, you have to abandon fiscal conservatism, and here is why: 2 million babies, 75-80% of them poor, are aborted in America every year. Rape accounts for practically none of them. Good old red-blooded recreational sex is the cause. And you cannot legislate against THAT or make it stop. People are gonna do it, sin or not, and contraception is gonna fail. Right now, it fails (or is ignored) about 2 million times every year, and about 1.6 million of those times, the baby that is conceived is conceived in the womb of a woman who will most certainly need social welfare to raise that child. So, if we do the right thing on abortion, we will increase the social welfare state by 1.6 million souls per year, year after years. The school systems will have to get bigger, the housing projects will have to get bigger.

You have a choice: be pro-life, and accept a LARGER social welfare state, or be pro-choice (which is to say, a murderer) and keep costs down. The choice that does not exist is the make-believe of the right: no abortion AND smaller social expenditures. That is ABSURD. it's ridiculous. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE. And it will never happen.

Pro-business is fine, BUT AGAIN if you are pro-life, that MEANS a LARGER social welfare state, so UNLESS you CUT SOMETHING ELSE (namely, the military) you are going to have to increase taxes. And that's not business friendly.

A large military and military intervention plus pro-life plus lower expenditures is fantasy land stuff. It is impossible.

Which brings is to the "pro-Israel" part. 50% of our foreign aid budget goes to Israel. Why, exactly, is it in the US national interest to pour such money into a white colony in the Middle East? How is that in any way in AMERICAN national interest? It certainly isn't CHRISTIAN. Jesus doomed ancient Israel and God destroyed it for good. This thing that calls itself "Israel" is a white European ethnic enclave carved out of Arab land because of white guilt over what happened to the Jews in World War II. It would have made a great deal more sense to give the Jews Bavaria and deport all of the Germans from that province, expropriating everything as punishment, and then requiring every European state that shipped Jews to the camps to provide financial aid for a generation. That would have been justice. Creating a European colony in the Middle East that has to be propped up forever by American taxpayers and American armies is ridiculous, and it is ridiculous that Americans permit it.

If you're going to be pro-life and stop abortion, you cannot pay for the large expansion of social welfare that will be required and ALSO maintain a world military empire with half of the foreign aid budget going to Israel. if you're going to be pro-life, you are going to have to cut off Israel.

The article concludes that the Left has to be fought totally, or not at all. The problem is that if you're going to be pro-life, you cannot simultaneously be fiscally conservative.

Pro-life is by its nature socially conservative. And if you are going to take the proper stance on life, that means that you have to start formally teaching sexual morality. So, you have to be socially conservative or you will break the bank.

But that will not be enough, because you cannot impose harsh punishment for sexual liberty - the nation will never allow it. Which means that pro-life inevitably leads to a permanent expansion of the social welfare state.

To be socially conservative, if pro-life is to be included in that, you have to be fiscally liberal when it comes to the social welfare state - because all of those babies have to eat - and even then the military empire cannot be sustained with a full-on pro-life agenda. For American babies to live, the American empire, and huge American aid to Israel, has to die.

Socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and pacificistic is the only thing that will actually WORK, if pro- life is part of the socially conservative aspect.

And if pro-life is not part of social conservatism, then that form of social conservatism is an evil sham that should lose anyway.

These are hard truths. American conservatives have to face them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-27   23:31:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie.

Bullshit!

Nothing but pure religious dogma by an Stalinist organization that seeks nothing less than world-wide domination.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-28   7:56:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#12)

"Life begins at conception. Anything that says otherwise is a lie."

Bullshit!

Nothing but pure religious dogma

Actually the reverse is true. Biologically human life DOES start at conception.

You are confusing this scientific fact with religious doctrine of ensoulment - when human living being receives soul.

Dogmatically this question is tricky. I can speak from the Orthodox perspective; Fathers of the Church had different opinion, some of them thought that ensoulment happens in moment of conception, others at 40 days after,others at the moment of quickening (first independent movements), others when body is perfectly formed, etc ...

But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.

Personally I tend to think that soul finds its fleshly home in the nervous system, so when nervous system appears and shows any activity before neuronal - when glial cells start to function as a network. (BTW, I suspect that glial cells are seat of consciousness/psyche as neurons are more like fast computer circuits under glial control.

Still it is only my uncertain opinion so I would support most cautious assumption - moment of conception.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-28   8:49:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A Pole (#17)

But in order to avoid possible homicide Orthodox Church assumes the earliest moment of conception, to err on the side of caution.

To me, God is clear in Scripture.

Go back to Genesis and take a good, perceptive look at the description of lives. This works in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and English - it isn't an artifact of language, it's what the text says.

It refers to the lives of each of the patriarchs, the lengths of those lives, and then describes the beginning of each life. And the WAY it does, is, e.g.: "Noah begat Ham", or "Enoch begat Methuselah". Begat.

The lives are each measured by the FATHERLY principle of reproduction, not birth from the mother, but begetting by the Father. And that only occurs once, at the very beginning, with intercourse and fertilization.

The father's begetting is punctiliar - he BEGETS a child when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And every life in Genesis is measured from THEN, not birth.

Scripturally, life begins at conception.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   9:19:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

You pervert the Bible.

The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.

Also there is no pope in the Bible. He is a false leader. A piece of shit.

Your left wing ideology is the opposite of what Christ taught.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-28   10:18:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)

The Bible says if you don't work you don't eat. Don already proved it to you but you ignore it.

You want to apply that to the retirees, including people in nursing homes?

How about children? Should they all work too if they want to eat?

I'm just curious how broadly you want to apply the work-to-eat principle and where your exemptions begin.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   10:49:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: TooConservative (#34)

God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.

He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people.

The government stealing money indiscriminately and giving it to losers is not the plan laid out in the Bible by the creator God.

It is the parents job to take care of their kids.

The kids are supposed to help their parents when they get old.

When Joseph ruled Egypt he showed that there is a role for government in helping people.

We just subsidize losers with money from people who need the noney also.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-28   10:54:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: A K A Stone (#35)

God created the family for a reason. To take care of each other.

He created the church for a reason too. Part of that was to help people.

The scripture you cited doesn't make those exceptions. It says work-to-eat. Period.

Obviously, you want to enforce the work-to-eat principle but only when it suits you.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   11:03:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#38)

2 Thessalonians 3:10

Here's the entire passage with several commentaries if you guys are interested.

BIBLEHUB.COM

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2015-09-28   11:20:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Rufus T Firefly, Vicomte13 (#42)

I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.

And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era.

Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   12:02:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: TooConservative (#44)

I liked Gill's comments. He is one of the few who ever pay attention to the Ethiopic manuscripts since the rest of Christendom simply pretends they don't exist. Actually, Vic is the only person I've ever noticed who even mentions the Ethiopic canon and manuscripts and my own knowledge of it is limited to Gill's remarks. Gill habitually looks at other ancient manuscripts like the Syriac, the ancient church fathers, etc.

And he was in particular a notable Hebraicist, fleshing out the general cultural attitude and colloquial sayings and writings of Jewish leaders of the era which I like because, while we should know the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the disciples, we should also have some idea of the mental and cultural baggage of those who first heard Jesus teach or the disciples preach His message. We can't understand precisely the full impact of Jesus' teachings unless we have some idea of prevailing Pharisaic and scribal teachings and how Jesus differed with the major established schools of thought among Jews of His era.

Sometimes you don't have as precise an idea of what is being said by Jesus and the disciples unless you know a bit about who they were saying it to and their ideas about religion and the social order.

I agree with all of this.

"All Scripture is God breathed" - Paul said that.

But neither Paul nor anybody else in the Scripture delineated exactly what Scripture IS.

After all, in Greek, "scripture" is just the word "writing". Obviously everything WRITTEN isn't God-breathed - Paul mean SACRED writings - but there's no list.

The lists were drawn up by various Churches. The Jews, for their part, did not have a written list either. They didn't formalize anything until a generation after the Temple came down, and by then there were fierce polemics with the Christians.

The Christians, for their part, didn't agree. The Eastern and Western Catholic Churches never fully agreed on an official canon - there are a handful of additional books and parts of books in the Greek Canon that are not in the Catholic Canon (though the difference is less important than it may seem, because neither the Orthodox nor the Catholics are Sola Scripturalists, both think that the traditions of the Church are ALSO inspired by God, and they all agree that all of the writings that some take as canonical are good for reading, holy and orthodox...just not at the level that should be called "necessary" canon.

There are differences between the Greek Orthodox Canon and the Russian Orthodox Canon also.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.

St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon.

Whether or not the Ethiopian books are really copies of the original, I cannot say. What I CAN say about Enoch in particular is that either Jesus read it extensively, or whoever wrote it did so with the Gospels in hand (except there's so much that is strange and not otherwise in the Scriptures in it), or it contains truth that Jesus knew and spoke independently, which rather strongly vouches for the actual inspiration of at least some of it.

I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism. The extra books in the East add details of history that otherwise are not there. The so-called "Apocrypha", which I definitely consider canonical because Jesus quotes them so often, contain the whole suite of spiritual history from Malachi to Jesus.

So, my view is expansive. If it's in any of the Orthodox Canons, I consider it important. And Enoch is particularly important because Jesus said so many of the things in it, and Jude quoted it by name. Peter referred to it very clearly also, though not by name.

I suppose if I were a Protestant, Sola Scriptura doctrine and tradition would make me frightened of these books, but I'm a Catholic and the Ethiopian and Catholic Churches were once in unity, and never separated over this then.

Enoch is probably at least partially inspired by God, and contains information that cannot be gotten anywhere else, so I read it.

But when I discuss things on boards with Protestants, I limit myself to the KJV, because things are already so contentious that adding pre-packaged conflict is...well, that's not what I'm about. I want to find consensus and see Christians form ranks in a common army to face the ENEMY, not each other!

(If I were feeling disputatious, I would use the so-called "Apocrypha", because they are translated and printed in the 1611 KJV.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   13:42:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Vicomte13 (#48)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, for its part, is as old as the Apostles, as old as any other Church (see the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts), and its canon is the longest, containing several books otherwise lost to history.

St. Jude speaks of the Book of Enoch. Well, we only HAVE the book of Enoch because the Ethiopians preserved it and consider it Scripture. Enoch is interesting because Jesus seems to quote it extensively. Also, among the various books that are not in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant canons but that are nevertheless considered canonical by an ancient Church, Enoch is the only one mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, and is the only one that really provides insights into things that are not otherwise revealed in the Bible (such as the names and motivations of the angels who fell and took human wives and made Nephilim came from). There are books mentioned in the Old Testament - Jubilees, Jasher, etc. that are also in the Ethiopian Canon.

It is interesting once you learn a bit about it. Certainly, there is much to interest even lay people in the history of the Ethiopian Orthodox. The Orthos, as a club, are certainly the most conservative of churches. They just don't change. Or ever throw anything away.     : )

I see no basis to reject the books of the Ethiopian Canon. After all, the Greek Orthodox and Latin Catholic canons are not identical, but that never divided the Church and provoked a schism.

It's no great reason to feel compelled to embrace the Ethiopic either. Even so, it does have a certain historical interest, regardless of which canon of scripture you prefer. As I said before, Gill is the only writer I've ever read who even mentioned it as a canon and as manuscript evidence for particular readings of a verse.

As I recall it, the Ethiopian Orthodox differ as much in their creedal disagreement with the other churches that are Orthodox or Catholic. So there are some doctrinal differences. Also, the Ethiopian church was established in very ancient times when Christianity spread across regions of Africa. Over the centuries, Ethiopian Christianity became geographically isolated for many centuries. So many of the issues that became quite important in the West or in Byzantium never penetrated some of the remote churches of the Copts or the Ethiopian Orthos or the Syrian or Mesopotamian churches.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   16:04:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: TooConservative (#73)

The most compelling reason to embrace the Ethiopic canon is that it contains Enoch. Jude referred directly to Enoch by name, and both Jude and Peter made arguments from it. Jesus quoted Enoch nearly verbatim several times. This book was very much on the minds of the Apostles and Christ himself.

Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it.

The whole argument about what IS canon is interesting to me, because men place such very heavy authority on Scripture, but then Scripture never defines what Scripture is. Where Scripture QUOTES Scripture, that's a pretty good indication of what IS Scripture, and where God Himself, in personam Jesus, AND the head of the Church, AND the brother of God - two Apostles and the Christ - are all using a book - well, the only Old Testament book that has THAT much cross usage is the Torah itself. Jesus quoted Isaiah quite a bit, but the Apostles didn't. There's a line or two from Daniel, but that's it.

Also, both Peter and Jude make specific theological ARGUMENTS from Enoch, and there isn't any OTHER text in the Old Testament, at all, that ever gives the data about the fallen angels leaving their stations and their motivations. Enoch is the ONLY Biblical source for that. Obviously it should be in the Bible.

Just as obviously, the Jews have been celebrating Hannukka as a high holy day for millennia, and yet the only place to read about it is in the books of the Maccabbees, which are part of the Jewish LXX but which were eliminated from the Jewish canon a generation or more after the destruction of the Temple, by very xenophobic and racist Jews, BECAUSE Maccabbees is written in Greek.

Obviously the Maccabbean account of the first Hannukka is properly in the Jewish canon, as it was at the time of Christ.

If a book is NECESSARY to understand a Biblical teaching or a major tradition - and Enoch is - that tells me that it's in the Canon. The fact that there are ancient Christian Churches that agree is second corroboration.

To my eyes, whatever any of the Orthodox call Canon, is properly included in the Canon, and that brings in a few extra sources.

It doesn't really change anything Jesus said, which is the law for us, but it gives the information necessary to evaluate.

The issues that became important in the West and Byzantium are all post Biblical, and have to be interpreted in light of the Bible.

I will avoid all discussion of the Reformation Era canon choices, because it doesn't lead anywhere good when Catholics and Protestants are speaking with each other.

Essentially, the canon of Scripture is the Ethiopic Canon, plus the additional book in the Slavic Canon, but it is not as easy to rely on the Ethiopic canon because it has not been mechanically translated, and when you've only got one or two translations, you may be getting some wrong things.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   16:22:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Vicomte13 (#75)

Why should it NOT be canonical? Jesus used it.

Because canon is a measure or standard set by the Ecumenical Councils for practical pastoral reason. There are many good and inspired texts that were not included.

Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-28   16:42:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: A Pole (#79)

Canon is not a fetish, it is an inspired collection of key and reliable books. But there are more.

Yes. And I agree with the Ethiopians that Enoch is a book inspired by God that should be read with the other books.

If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   16:46:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

If it is not included, then Jude's letter loses the marrow of its argument.

Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-28   17:32:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: A Pole (#83)

Non sequitur. Saint Paul quotes Greek poetry that of course is not in the canon, it does not undermine "the marrow of his argument"

Yes it does, because Jude is making a theological point.

In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   17:42:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Vicomte13 (#85)

In any case, Jesus quotes Enoch extensively, so it should be in the canon.

You've sunk your teeth into this one. LOL

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   20:36:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: TooConservative (#94)

I actually agree with A Pole insofar as the designation as "canon" is a vague sort of line. I agree with him that the writings of the early saints, such as the Didache, or Clement's letters are every bit as authoritative as the writings of Paul or Jude.

And happily, the Ethiopian Orthodox agree, for those documents are also part of the Tewahedo canon.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-28   20:41:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Vicomte13 (#95)

I actually agree with A Pole insofar as the designation as "canon" is a vague sort of line. I agree with him that the writings of the early saints, such as the Didache, or Clement's letters are every bit as authoritative as the writings of Paul or Jude.

We might make this claim. But when the canon was established, those books were rejected as they did not provide a reliable testimony or teach vital doctrine or they contained passages that contradicted other fundamental texts. Frankly, I've never understood exactly how Jude passed muster in those deliberations.

We also have to recognize that for most of the books of the canon, they confirmed those that were widely in circulation. A few others, like Clement's epistles, were in circulation and were considered of great interest to readers but that they did not contain direct testimony or vital doctrine from the time of Jesus and the earliest churches.

There was a certain minimalism used to screen unsuitable or dubious books out of the canon.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-28   21:03:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#98)

Always thought Clement was a the third bishop of Rome and considered post apostolic. So given the apostolic criteria I can see why his works were not included in the NT canon. Only exceptions would be Mark and Luke. Mark writing Peter's gospel account and Luke the close companion and fellow traveler with Paul.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-28   23:01:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: redleghunter (#106)

So given the apostolic criteria

Which are arbitrary and not accepted by the entire Church.

There is no reason to privilege that Latin Church's decision, or the Greek Church's decision, over the Ethiopian Church's. The Ethiopian Church is older than the Latin Church, and as old as the Greek Church. They always used the holiest apostolic writings, and some of the writings of the Church fathers.

Who gave the Greeks or the Italians the power to decide that ONLY THESE BOOKS are inspired by God? Nobody did. And given that the Ethiopian Church's actual BEHAVIOR was exemplary, when compared to the Latins and the Greeks, and also given the fact that God stripped the Greeks and the Latins of many faithful, but Ethiopia stood as a rock in a flood of Islam all around, the fact of victory demonstrates a divine favor that has an authority that exceeds that of Churches that were defeated by hostile religions and lost 90% of their adherents, forever.

Should, therefore, the Latin Church or Greek or Russian Church of today "change their canon"? Why bother. The Ethiopians preserved certain parts of Scripture, and we can get it from them, and if the Greeks and Latins and Russians don't want to admit that those writings were inspired by God, and therefore have authority, well, they're no different from the Baptists then, are they?

One reads more of God's inspiration in a Catholic Bible than a Protestant, because there are more inspired books in it, and more still in a Greek Orthodox Bible than a Catholic one. There's an additional book in the Russian Bible that the Greeks don't have. And finally the Ethiopians, who have the Old Testament books that are referred to in the Old Testament, but that the other Christians don't have (the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Jasher), and of course Enoch, the Didache, the Letters of Clement, etc.

There is a reason to privilege the Ethiopian canon: it's the most complete.

And there is a reason to dismiss the superiority of wisdom in the choices made by the Greek Orthodox and the Latin Catholics - the Greeks lost to Islam; the Russians lost to the Mongols. And the Latins? Well, look at how corrupt and barbaric they became.

The Ethiopians had the favor of God: they did not succumb to Islam. They didn't have to have a Reformation. And they were founded IN ISRAEL by an Apostle speaking to a high official - meaning that whereas Greek and Roman officials rejected Christianity and tormented it, but the Ethiopians understood all the way to the top, from the start. And they preserved everything to now.

Which means that the moral claim to superior wisdom clearly rests with Ethiopia, and their choice of the fullest canon is the most logically sustainable.

If one wants to stick to the Catholic argument: "Only apostolic writing in the Scripture", that is fine as a limiter, unless one also adds to that an arbitrary "Only Scripture" tradition on top of that which treats something like the Didache as less authoritative than, say, a letter of Paul. There is no basis other than stubborn traditional prejudice for that.

Enoch is Scripture. The Didache is Scripture. Clementine Letters are Scripture. So are Jubilees and Jasher.

Why would they not be? Why are the opinions of corrupt, fighting, ultimately weakened and failed Greeks or ultimately violent and barbaric Latins better witnesses than a church older than either that neither fell nor failed nor went barbaric?

Cultural prejudice? An error, then.

It's Scripture.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-29   1:04:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc (#110)

Who gave the Greeks or the Italians the power to decide that ONLY THESE BOOKS are inspired by God? Nobody did.

I understand your approach on this and have to say you are consistent.

However, I do not dismiss the scholarship of the time in which the canon was debated.

I read a lot of Enoch last night. I came back with the same impression of it as I did when looking at texts such as the Qur'an and BOM. Most portions are choppy, thoughts not completed (maybe due to missing parts?), some even incoherent. When compared to what we do have in the OT and NT canon there is clarity, fullness, coherence, uniformity, well ordered. Much of which is absent or lacking in Enoch, and quite a few other religious texts of antiquity.

However, I believe the largest factor the church fathers considered was authorship. No one knows if Enoch actually wrote Enoch and no one knows the original scribe.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   8:54:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: redleghunter (#123)

I read a lot of Enoch last night. I came back with the same impression of it as I did when looking at texts such as the Qur'an and BOM. Most portions are choppy, thoughts not completed (maybe due to missing parts?), some even incoherent. When compared to what we do have in the OT and NT canon there is clarity, fullness, coherence, uniformity, well ordered. Much of which is absent or lacking in Enoch, and quite a few other religious texts of antiquity.

What you read, of course, was an English translation of a Geez/Amharic text. There are not many bilingual scholars of these things.

When I read Proverbs, I do not find it to be choppy, but I do find many of the attitudes in several of the parables to be inconsistent with the messages of God that preceded it and of Jesus that came afterwards. Some of it sounds like God, and a lot of it sounds like men writing their own practical, but somewhat ungodly, traditions in there.

With several parts of Scripture, I come to places where what is being said doesn't feel like God at all. It feels like men asserting what they think.

I find, throughout the corpus of Scripture, that it is very inconsistent point to point, with lots of conflict in it.

This is why I narrow my view to the parts that say "God said..." or "Jesus said..." It is not that I reject everything else. Rather, it's a winnowing process that uses the simply logic of the Scripture itself.

I think the reason for all of the anxiety about the canon of Scripture comes from the logic of Sola Scriptura, which, of course, I do not accept as a valid way to look at God. But I do accept that it is a good way to impose discipline on theological discussions.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-29   11:26:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#129)

I think the reason for all of the anxiety about the canon of Scripture comes from the logic of Sola Scriptura,

Could be for many, long after the first three to four centuries. Can't believe I am making a case for Latins and Greeks in this discussion:) Funnier things have happened here on LF in the past:)

However, I don't get that 'choppy' feel when reading the TaNaKh and NT. I do with Enoch and as you explained it could be translation related.

Proverbs? Good advice in there. It is not a doctrinal text. Nor is Ecclesiastes. As a matter of fact when I first read Ecclesiates I mentioned to a Bible study lead that Solomon was probably in his backsliding years when composing them. It is a very glum and depressing book.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   14:07:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: redleghunter, Too Conservative (#133)

Proverbs? Good advice in there. It is not a doctrinal text. Nor is Ecclesiastes. As a matter of fact when I first read Ecclesiates I mentioned to a Bible study lead that Solomon was probably in his backsliding years when composing them. It is a very glum and depressing book.

Well, now, this is interesting, because it gets to the marrow of what different people see in Scripture.

I find some of the advice in Proverbs to be profound, and some of it to be glib. Ecclesiastes, by contrast, I find to be the deepest work of the Bible, because it is completely human in its outlook - there are no commandments there - a mind moving through all of the different streets and alleyways, and examining every human diversion and philosophy, and discovering that it all, all of it, is in vain and doomed to decay. All that's left at the end is God. Every material angle and every human artifice is dust in the wind. And all that's left is God.

Other books have striving and failing, commandment and consequence, but there is no THREAT in Ecclesiastes, no "do this or else". There is, rather, a man who has the real choices that real men face: we are astonishingly free. And because he is rich and powerful, he has ALL of the choices that any man of his era could make. We can dream of making laws, but he did make them. We can dream of having whatever sensuous pleasure we would like, but he had the money and power to do them. We can dream of having the freedom to be abstemious, but he had the freedom to do it.

And every path of endeavor, whatever achieved, ultimately ended in dust and ashes.

Every single solitary thing that every man does is utterly worthless. It is perishable, like him. And it, like him, DOES perish, and disappears, leaving a memory, for awhile. And then even that fades. The most prominent of all men leave a name that only the educated know, and maybe a sentence. And nothing more.

Qoholeth is right: it is all vanity. Utter vanity. We build nothing, and if we think we do, we are deceived.

By doing all, and trying all, Qoholeth came to realize that everything is vanity.

The parallel figure in history was Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha. They each came to a profound spiritual conclusion, albeit a different one, based on their pre-programmed faith.

The Buddha sought the final end of unprofitable recycling through the ages by finding Nirvana - the nonexistence of the soul, finally escaping the circles of the world through nonexistence.

Qoholeth realized that there is nothing worth holding onto as a perishable man in a perishable and perishing world. Only God.

You find it glum and depressing. But I find it the most enlightening and true revealed by human reason in all of Scripture.

Now, as to the "not a doctrinal text" comment. What is a "doctrinal text", and who says?

I will tell you truthfully: the only person who can decide which text is doctrinal and which is not, is you yourself. God never gave any man, or collection of men, the power or indeed the ABILITY to decide that, for exactly the reason that precedes this part of this message. The texts are collected and preserved, and what is most important varies from mind to mind. And nobody is appointed either cop or judge to determine what is and is not "doctrinal" for anybody else.

Men think they have that power, and they divide the Church by trying to assert it. They don't. And they should stop trying.

We each come at God differently, through the light God gives us - if it finally comes down to a test of whose viewpoint is authoritative, I already know the answer to that: MINE. And whoever says differently is self-evidently wrong, and would be better to stop digging himself in deeper.

And so it is with every mind. Jesus did not grant anybody the power to dominate anybody else's relationship to him and to the Father. We can encourage each other, and enlighten each other, and remind each other of dangers and traps, but when we seek to compel each other under pain of this or that, then by doing so we are wrong by definition.

Enoch and the Didache are canon, because the Ethiopian Orthodox say they are. The Ethiopian Orthodox have the same authority as the Catholics and the Greeks in terms of age: they date from the Apostles. They have more authority than the Greeks because they resisted Islam while 90% of the East fell to Islam. They have more authority than the Catholics because the Catholics burnt people alive, including a messenger sent from God, and the Ethiopian Orthodox didn't.

You know them by their fruit, and the Ethiopian Orthodox have 2000 years of sweet fruit, without mass apostasy, and without mass murder. Therefore the superiority of their wisdom is proven by the superiorty of their works and acts over the long haul. Which means that their judgments regarding what is Scripture are also better. Obviously.

You know them by their fruit. Best fruit, best canon. Period.

To me, that really is the FINAL answer, and everything else is just desperate, pathetic pleading of more morally compromised and more defeated variants.

This doesn't mean that every tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox is the best. It DOES mean that God has favored them exceptionally, as evidenced by their superior persistence, the centuries of good fruit, and the relative absence of rotten fruit.

So, you can doubt the canonicity of the Didache if you wish, but I don't.

To be clear, it matters, because Paul said "All Scripture is God breathed...", so saying that something is Scripture matters.

And what the Ethiopians say is Scripture, is Scripture, because their fruit over 2000 years has been the less rotten, their faith the more persistent, and their challenges (surrounded by raging Islam) the most continuous and dire, yet lightly borne.

Maybe that's why God gave them the Ark of the Covenant for safekeeping, and not the Greeks or the Romans.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-29   14:58:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Vicomte13 (#140)

Enoch and the Didache are canon, because the Ethiopian Orthodox say they are.

Well I guess that settles it:) Move the Vatican to Ethiopia now!

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-29   15:24:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: redleghunter (#141)

Well I guess that settles it:)

For me it does.

However, just as when speaking with Protestants I seek to use Scripture as the basis of the discussion - because by the terms of their theology that is the ultimate and final authority; and just as, when demanded, I will use the KJV Only - because KJV Onlyists will accept only the KJV as TRUE Scripture; I will constrain myself in a public theological discussion with Protestants to use only the books of their abridged canon, and only in the KJV form which virtually all of them accept as authoritative.

I do all of this fully recognizing what all is being lost and left aside, because otherwise there is no conversation, and there is enough in what is left to bind everybody to the same set of crucial practices.

In fact, there is enough in just the words spoken by Elohiym, YHWH and Jesus alone to bind everybody to the full and correct beliefs and practices. Everything else is detail: history and example and argument.

In this way, I sidestep all denominational disputes about the canon, or the translation - I just use the one that the hardest-bitten Protestants say is the only true Scripture.

And once within Scripture, I will always acknowledge that anything and everything written therein, by anybody - including Paul in particular - is Scripture, and accept that it must be taken into account.

Where I finally draw the line, though, is when an interpretation nullifies a commandment of Christ. Christ can nullify YHWH's earlier statements, and does, but nothing and nobody can ever nullify Christ.

And Christ speaking later is more authoritative than Christ speaking earlier, if there appears to be a conflict between he himself.

What this means is that where Christ speaks in Revelation, which is from the Throne Room of Heaven, AFTER the Resurrection, Ascenscion and Apostles have done their work - THOSE final words of Christ, which end the Bible, are THE most authoritative things of everything God says.

So, for example, when Christ says to six churches, in a row, that they can lose what they gained, have their lampstand cast down, be spewed out of the mouth, and be ultimately rejected if they fail to persevere to the end and overcome their temptations - and that they, the baptized Christians washed in the blood of the land in original churches created by the apostles themselves - that THEY will be judged by their works - that right there authoritatively, definitively and absolutely ANSWERS THE QUESTION, with FINALITY.

And Christians should not be debating that point any more, because God Almighty, IN HEAVEN, IN POWER, DICTATED that answer, SIX TIMES. There is no debate. There are people who can read, and there are people who are wrong.

It[s all right there, in the KJV.

Once that fact is accepted, all of the endless denominations debates SHOULD end, because Christians should realize that their theological debates will be MEANINGLESS at the end - at the end baptized washed in the blood Christians will be judged by their WORKS.

So the focus should be, once one believes and is baptized and eats the body and blood, to do the WORKS demanded by Christ. Because they are the criteria for judgment, according to God Almighty, speaking directly to baptized Christians in real apostolic Churches (not pagans, not unbelievers, not people without faith - people who HAVE the faith already, and have done what is necessary and required.

THAT is where our eyes should be.

But that's hard.

Yes, it is hard.

Which is why, once again, our eyes should be on that, on doing the hard things. Bickering about books is easy. Giving away money is hard.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-29   22:48:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#156)

And Christ speaking later is more authoritative than Christ speaking earlier, if there appears to be a conflict between he himself.

That is full blown heresy. Jesus Christ was and is fully God from eternity, and both fully God and fully man from the Incarnation into eternity. His statements are all equally authoritative.

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-09-30   5:17:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: GarySpFC (#161)

That is full blown heresy.

If you believe that, then shun me and cease speaking with me.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-30   7:01:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Vicomte13, GarySpFC (#163)

"That is full blown heresy."

If you believe that, then shun me and cease speaking with me.

Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy.

I would have to become a hermit :)

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-30   7:07:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: A Pole (#164)

Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy.

That's your church, not mine.

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-04   6:13:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: GarySpFC (#177)

"Most of my friends if not all, follow some heresy."

That's your church, not mine.

Most of my friends are not from the church. What is your church?

A Pole  posted on  2015-10-04   10:07:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: A Pole (#178)

The church of Christ.

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-05   13:54:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 179.

#180. To: All (#179)

Grace in the Church

Romans 5:18–21

Grace Triumphs Over Sin

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Rom. 5:20–21]

This is a difficult passage because it sounds as if Paul is saying that God gave the Mosaic law to make sin greater. Paul explains in other places that the law had many purposes, but his point here is that one effect of giving the law was to show that sin is sin. Of itself, law doesn’t create sin. Rather, the evil disposition of our hearts creates sin. The role of the law is to define, condemn, expose, and reveal sin for what it is. Moreover, there is a sense in which the law’s very presence incites us to sin. Now, it does not incite righteous creatures to sin, but it does incite ungodly creatures to sin. One of the ways to provoke me to sin is to tell me there is something I’m not allowed to do. My rebellious nature, fueled by an evil disposition, motivates me to greater sin simply because the law prescribes certain boundaries and limitations. But, says Paul, where sin abounds grace abounds much more. As we see sin growing and flourishing, we might despair. Paul tells us, though, that grace is growing also. Notice that Paul does not say that sin is abounding and so is grace, so that it is balanced off. No, Paul says that grace abounds much more—not just more, but much more. There is a greater measure of grace in this world than there is of sin. Common grace and saving grace work together to suppress human evil and tendencies to sin. Think about that for a minute; if you think it’s bad now, imagine what it would be like if God were to remove the restraint of grace. We simply have no conception of the capacity for evil that dwells in the human heart. But God does, and that is why he has caused grace to abound. Coram Deo We could easily become discouraged. From our vantage point sin seems to dominate. The more mature we grow in the faith the more fully we comprehend the complexity of sin and evil in the world. We literally perceive more sin. Thank God that our spiritual maturity also enables us to see grace abounding all the more in those circumstances. Ask God to show you the “much more” of his grace, beginning in your own life. For further study: Galatians 3:19–29; Colossians 1:28–29; 2:6–7; James 4:1–6

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-05 13:59:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: GarySpFC (#179)

The church of Christ.

The Church of Christ? These Congregationalists tend to be liberal these days. Isn't that so?

A Pole  posted on  2015-10-05 15:03:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 179.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com