WolfBitn

I have no problem with what you are saying here. This does not however say that we are under Mosaic law, which is what people mean when they talk about being under the law. God has never changed, but there was a time when he laid down a religion for man, and then that time was fulfilled. Before Moses men also needed to be righteous (ie Noah). But Noah knew nothing of circumcision or the Tabernacle. Noah was not under the law, but he was responsible to God for his actions. You seem to be missing the point of the OP my friend Adam had a law, dont eat of the tree, Noah had a law, build the ark, Moses had a law, we all have a law which we live under... another point being the law has never passed away... and until heaven and earth passes not one jot of it ever will. You cant be a murder or adulterer and enter the kingdom of heaven Jesus is our sacrifice, we come in repentance and God has always required both when we transgress the law

I'm not replying to my own posts... i am providing evidence for the topic which i have uncovered in my studies, and i still have more to go. If youre interested in this topic i invite you to read and comment, if not, no worries

I know that I do not have to sacrifice animals to repent of my sin. If you are trying to get me to say that God has no judgement, you won't hear that from me. But loving God and our neighbors sums up our directive. If I do both I do well. If I do things you suggested, I love neither God nor my neighbor. Your second question confuses is me. How could I say my understanding is not real. It is real to me. So you are under the law of love, you are under the law of 'repent and believe', as we all are, i think you'd agree yes? If this is all so, how do you neither love your neighbor nor God if you do not kill, and do not steal or covet or commit adultry or lie or use the name of God in vain, or regard and keep holy the Sabboth?? Are you saying this isnt evidence that you may just love your neighbor and God? This is evidence of NOT loving God and your neighbor? I am sure that we are not understanding each other well. So I will do my best to clear up what I said. I cannot love God and my neighbor, if I murder and commit adultery, or even if I gossip. By walking in love with both God and man I am walking in righteousness. For a time God laid down this righteous pattern of behavior with a strict legal code, with layer upon layer of complicated requirements and ceremony. This was necessary because man was separated from God by sin. Man was given a temporary fix to cover over their sin. Those under the law were not redeemed by their sacrifice. But now the law is fulfilled by the sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the cross. When something is fulfilled that means it is finished. And indeed Christ said himself "it is finished". Today we know what sin is and we know that when we sin we need to repent. This is not the law of Moses, it is a new covenant between God and man. If you have to call it a law of something, go ahead, but those are your words not God's Let me rearrange this thinking just slightly Isnt it true that from the beginning God didnt just require a sacrifice, He also required repentence to be attatched to that sacrifice, wouldnt you agree? There are many scriptures to bear this out, but i am hoping we can simply agree first to save the trouble of posting them all. Secondly, the ONLY change has been that now we need not sacrifice a bull or a dove, because Christ is our sacrifice, but the pattern remains... Sin requires a sacrifice AND repentence. Jesus fulfills the sacrifice for every sin, we provide the repentance... the ONLY thing thats changed is what is sacrificed. Also once we sin, are we to repent or are we to stay in sin?

Hi good to meet you Let me first address the good Doctor's credentials... first of all, no number of degrees guarantees 'no bias', would you agree? Neither do the number of credentials guarantee 'no agenda' other than presenting the truth... again can we agree on these 2 points?

But of course 'Narnia' was originally written to parallel the life and death and resurrection of Christ to save those who are His 'kingdom inhabitants'.

I know that I do not have to sacrifice animals to repent of my sin. If you are trying to get me to say that God has no judgement, you won't hear that from me. But loving God and our neighbors sums up our directive. If I do both I do well. If I do things you suggested, I love neither God nor my neighbor. Your second question confuses is me. How could I say my understanding is not real. It is real to me. So you are under the law of love, you are under the law of 'repent and believe', as we all are, i think you'd agree yes? If this is all so, how do you neither love your neighbor nor God if you do not kill, and do not steal or covet or commit adultry or lie or use the name of God in vain, or regard and keep holy the Sabboth?? Are you saying this isnt evidence that you may just love your neighbor and God? This is evidence of NOT loving God and your neighbor?

Why did i do this study? There is more to come to prove the Alexandrian manuscripts originated from a heretical Ancient doctor of theology, Origin, and i am about to begin posting the evidence for this... Frankly I mistrust modern scholarship. simply because it drasticly departs from traditional scholarship. When scripture prophecies that men shall depart from the faith, i take it that this departure from good biblical manuscript tradition is meant as well. Unfortunately i also am very disappointed in the NKJV. It dies in fact contain many all of the passages omitted from the niv, however it is chock full of notes, showing that they are in fact basing this version on the Alexandrian manuscripts. for example from the NKJV There is good reason these are called "Alexandrian" as nearly all of them were found in the alexandrian area, which was known for its departure from traditional doctrine. Just as it seems that Westcott and Hort both had reason to undermine the authority of scripture, it looks like Origin too had reason... he was knostic, and both he and his teacher, Clement of Alexandria, taught at the school of knowledge at Alexandria, a knostic school teaching greek philosophy, mythology and gnostic teachings. The most intrigueing part of this to me is that Origin was a universalist, and the changes are done in such a way as to promote universalist theology. He also had other very strange doctrine, such as his doctrine on the logos. It seems to me that these changes in traditional literature have their place in an evil satanic scheme, namely to create doubt in the minds of as many as possible, in the infallability of scripture, and its true inspiration from God. The fact that the claims of the alexandrian manuscripts are found to be false, they are not the oldest, they are completely corrupted and not reliable in the slightest, and the fact that men in scholastic power hold to these claims and cover evidence by omission to prove these claims wrong, show me that indeed there is something much more than rotten in Denmark. Origins writings were the first written departure from the traditional texts that we have preserved in manuscript fashion, and every alexandrian manuscript from that point on, (roughly 45) echo Origins changes. He believed that in the end even satan would be saved, a decidedly Universalist doctrine. It has been implied by many teachers concerning manuscript evidence, that the school of Alexandria, and in particular Clement and most especially Origen, had no influence on what we now know as the 'alexandrian texts'. The reality is however, the Influence of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, his student, on the church and in the manuscripts, are astounding... It seems rather foolish to say that the texts from ostly the alexandrian area had no influance on the alexandrian manuscripts. Let me give just a few highlights on Origin from mainstream sources, and then i will add a few things in the next post or 2 that i have found in my studies concerning the comma, Origin and the alexandrian texts in general from Origen - LoveToKnow 1911 we have the following... from CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Origen and Origenism we have the following... From http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e...tm/ii.viii.htm we have the following... It is impossible to say with any accuracy, that Origen had no influence on the early church in Alexandria Egypt and especially the alexandrian manuscripts, unless you discount all the evidence here. As stated above, even the alexandrian codexes were arranged in the manner of Origin, so we see his influance on the changes ^^That is MOST important, as he stated himself this was his intent on study... to 'improve' on the manuscripts... in other words change them. It is important to note as well that in Vaticanus, one of the scribes working on the text BLASTED past scribves for changing the text... and this is the text used for the westcott hort new greek translation that is now the backing for ALL modern versions

When you hit the "reply" button, do you see the box to the right with the smilies? At the top of the box it says "Show All" - click on that. You get a whole bunch of smilies that way. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thats what happens when an Atheist hears the word 'apologetics' lol Yes i do know hes right about the origin of the word, but also there is merit in the fact that 'apology' has the same etymology... hence my great distaste for it. I cant picture Samson using 'apologetics' but i CAN picture him 'beating the stuffings out of philistines' lol And no i dont think Atheists are philistines, but i think you get my drift. If we want to be taken seriously i believe we should be careful with our words... words can command respect even in the easiest of tones, or create laughter and nonseriousness even with the boldest of tones. In todays world, image is everything and yes i understand Christian 'liberal' arts lolol... again words convey more than definition do they not

As do i, its a very WEAK word to use before the world in this day and age And i want that sword fighting smiley, dang how do i get that lol Why is it we dont hear Atheists using the word apologetics in referance to THEIR work, but they are more than happy to use it inn referance to OUR work as Christians? Words convey meaning more than just definition, and apologetics conveys weakness not strength... "WARRING" "DEFENDING TO THE DEATH" "LAYING DOWN THE TRUTH WITH CONCRETE" "PULLING DOWN DUMB ARGUEMENTS WITH A CRANE" .....yeah thats much better

There is a lot i can say about Origin, and his influance on the Alexandrian texts, (frankly i believe the evidence indicates that Origen was wthe originator of the Alexandrian texts... he REWROTE the mauscripts to comply more with his own universalist theology) and the fact he was found to be heretical, and i hope to in just another post or 2, but i have a few more thoughts i'd like to offer first. Let me provide this from a brother, Dr Frank Logsdon, who helped lay the groundwork for the NASV... From Another Bible, Another Gospel http://www.watch.pair.com/another.html

I do agree with you that "Easter" is a horrible translation. Actually when i study i use several differant translations. I rely on the KJV however to include the complete texts. This is the ONLY modern translation contianing the entire text, and there are some very major doctrinal differances, in the texts that are missing from the newer translations. I will post some of my notes on some of these differances

I became aware of evidence that Origin, the apostate teacher form Alexandria, where most of the Alexandrian types were found, 'rewrote' scriptures intending to undermining it. He even commented on educating himself to 'improve' on them, and wrote well over 6000 works actually changing doctrine effectively. Just as Origin worked to undermine the gospel, i believe it becomes apparent that so did Westcott and Hort Westcott Hort, gave us the newer greek translation based on 2 Manuscripts with 45 manuscripts backing them ONLY in key portions of scripture. From this comes most all the newer translations of the bible including the NIV... Lets examine their overall outlook on things... W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, London, 1948 Arthur Hort, son of Fenton John Anthony Hort, wrote "The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort". Did the esteemed team of westcott and hort have an underlying hidden agenda for abandoning the great majority of accepted texts at critical points, to replace it with minority texts that were considered by most scholars to be flawed? These quotes From Arthur Hort's book can be very eye opening... The following are quotes from letters written by Hort, to Westcott

There are many scholars today who would try to refute all this info, and theres tons more... A refutation is often something that just looks at the fact and says 'uh no'. There is perfectly good reason why men in powerful seminarial positions want to confuse the issues... many times they themselves are enemies of Christ. 2 WONDERFUL examples of this are Westcott and Hort themselves. What we DO have are quotes and referances to the comma going back to 177 AD.. We have Jeromes VERY straight forward accusation against the scribes of his day stating they intentionally REMOVED the comma in the very forward of his translation. We have cyprians quote, and we have much more Erasmus for instance, despised the greek texts for having been manipulated... he said

Heres something interesting. The NIV is based basicly nearly entirely on the Sianaticus and the Vaticanus. Jerome ( c390AD) said from Jeromes forward now lets look at the passage one more time... Ok Jerome states that this is a testamony of the trinity... and says that concerning verse 8, the translaters of his day INCLUDED verse 8... YET Jerome THEN goes on to make a very direct accusation... Jerome in other words, is CLEARLY stating... "there are those who have included verse 8 in first john, BUT THEY OMITTED the VERY THINGS that confirm that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are a single substance" of course "The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit" being a 'single essance' not only IS this a direct quote from the comma, its an accusation of editing it out Jerome lived 340 AD- 420 AD... AT THE VERY TIME OF THE SINATICUS.... It appears that jerome is accusing the very document that the NIV offers as its foundation, and having been shown it was tampered with for centuries. As a matter of fact Jeromes words can be seen as direct testimony against the sinaticus in the very day it was fresh and new... Jerome is a contemperary of sinaticus and he is blasting its very type (The Alexandrian Text Type) in this quote.

Also it is stated that no other church Fathers referred to 1 jn 6:7... other than Cyprian... let me correct this... The history of 1 john 5:7 is clearly documented, though suppressed. The following, all contain either the quote or a referance to the comma 1john57 177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order." 215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number. 250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually." Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear. note: Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37 380A.D. PRISCILLIAN verify here Liber Apologeticus As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." 390A.D. JEROME prologue to the Canonical Epistles "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur." note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37 (The latin here says that revisioners of the texts had REMOVED 1 Jn 5:7... the comma) 450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782 Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." 450 A.D. De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum (A collection of statements and precepts drawn from the Old Latin Bible (both Old and New Testaments). It has been attributed to Augustine, but this is not likely. Aland dates it c. 427. Except in editions associated with the Alands, it is usually cited as m of the Old Latin. In Paul at least, the text seems to be generally more primitive than the European Latin of the bilingual uncials. In the Catholics, it has many links with the text of Priscillian.) Latin MS, also known as "m" "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37 484 A.D. Victor of Vita Historia persecutionis Africanae prov. 2.82[3.11], CSEL7, 60 485 A.D. Victor Vitensis Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB "there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." 500 A.D. Beuron 64 known as "r". (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS) CODEX FREISINGENSIS "and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one." 527 A.D. FULGENTIUS (Considered, after Amiatinus, the best Vulgate manuscript. Copied for and corrected by Victor of Capua. Italian text. The Gospels are in the form of a harmony (probably based on an Old Latin original, and with scattered Old Latin readings). Includes the Epistle to the Laodiceans.) Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91) RB "there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. And the three are one being." 527 A.D. FULGENTIUS Contra Fabianum (frag. 21.4: CC 91A, 797) "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And the three are one being." 527 A.D. FULGENTIUS De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636), per RB "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one being." pre 550 A.D. JEROME prologue to the Catholic Epistles. "Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31)." per RB. Jerome writes in his prologue that the Comma (1John5:7-8) is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators. 570 A.D. CASSIODORUS Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn. "Moreover, in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one God." 583 A.D. CASSIODORUS In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos. (10.5.1; PL 70, 1373A) employs "Son" in place of "Word." NOTE: Cassiodorus cited the Comma in his commentary. 636 A.D. ISIDORE of SEVILLE Testimonia divinae Scripturae 2[PL, 83, 1203C] per RB. "And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one." 650 A.D. The Leon Palimpsest, also known as "Legionensis" or Beuron 67 CODEX PAL LEGIONENSIS "and there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." 700 A.D. JAQUB of EDESSA On the Holy Eucharistic Mysteries, Syriac document "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit." 735 A.D. The year of the decease of Venerable Bede manuscript E (also known as Basiliensis), Greek. Located: Basel, Switzerland. Universit

This is the result of much study i have done in the area of biblical manuscripts making up the textus receptus, fomr which we get the KJV, and the Alexandrian Texts from which we get all the newere versions Let me begin by making the statement that I'm not a kjv onliest , though i feel the other versions are based on fraudulent and inferior material, and that yes the comma was there before it wasnt... There's even testimony form Jerome around 390 ad, that it was there and then removed. I find it ludacris as well that newer versions such as the niv claim to be based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts when both claims are blatantly false, and just a little study into the subject proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Westcott Hort New Greek version, translated by Westcott and Hort, make the claim that they based their translation on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts extant. The OLDEST manuscripts however, are the latin, not the greek, and the latin contained the comma, not to mention the fact that they also contained the entire passages contained in the textus receptus, but which are also left out of the Sinaticus and Vaticanus (The 2 manuscripts making up the newer translation by Westcott and Hort). The comma is also quoted by early fathers despite the claim to the contrary. The basis for the newer versions are mainly the 2 old greek manuscripts, incomplete, tons of hand written reviosions, the ink had even disappeared nearly, a few hundred years ago and it was copied over... SEVERAL SCRIBES were instrumental in the revisions, and one scribe even remarked in the text itself that past scribes were changing the text. So much for most reliable... Then when we add to the fact that the Western texts PREDATE the Alexandrian texts, and that they agree with the texts making up the textus receptus, and disagree with the alexandrian texts, so much for oldest... The latin ALSO predated the Alexandrian. Horrible scholarship, horribly false claims Here is some very interesting information concerning the comma that just isnt taught in seminary... 1 John 5:7 was QUOTED before the alexandrian manuscripts were even in existance... and the WESTERN Texts precede the alexandrian... .. it WAS in the latin texts the absolute proof that it predated the alexandrian manuscripts is this... it was quoted by Cyprian BEFORE 250 AD Manuscript Evidence: Lesson Ten, Dr. Thomas Holland Also in a study on textural criticism, we have this... http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_.....;/lesson10.html

So then you would disagree that we are now under the law of Repent and Believe? You believe that its ok now to do murder? Its ok to steal? To commit adultry? Or do you have a real understanding of not being 'under the law' but 'under grace'? Would you agree the law shows us what is good and what is evil? Our school teacher? And what of the law to repent and believe? Is this not a law? We surely cannot make it to the Kingdom of God without obeying this law

Yes and the word apologize comes from the same greek root... hency my opening post. I refuse to leave anyone the impression i am apologizing for being a believer in Christ. I am ashamed of the word, and i will DEFEND, i will not 'apologize' I'm glad to see others feel as i do But our modern use of the word is not what the Greek word means or ever meant. The Greek word Apologia NEVER meant to say one is sorry or ashamed. Apologia means to defend. That is all. blah blah why do you assume people are idiots? You think no one knows the etymology of apologetics but you? Our modern word 'Apology' DOES come from the greek root lol Not according to almost everyone else posting... Cant you tell by the opening post i KNOW what the word means? ...lets get withit now lol, sheesh i am still working on my first cup of coffee... Dont confront a wolf before coffee... youll be breakfast Why is it we ARENT 'apologizing' in iraq? Do we do apologetics for our nation, or do we do battle for it at times? You feel free to apologize bro, I will do battle I am SO glad there are those who see the humor in the op lol Now for coffee and a better frame of mind

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. I have seen many disputes concerning the nature of the law and the nature of grace. It seems that some believe they are competitive, as in "The Law Vs. Grace". It seems some feel they are mutually exclusive, as in "if we are under law we are not under grace, and if we are under grace we are under no law". In what i see from scripture i believe there is a better view, which i will present as the law of "Law AND Grace". I am a gentile grafted into the House of Israel, which IS the church of God and are the children of God, after all, the church is nothing more than a sect of the Jew, and it is from this unique position that i have observed this within the church... Having attended several denominational and nondenominational churches, as well as having the pleasure of studying the Tenach and the Torah from a Jewish perspective at times, i have noted that Some within the denominational churches snub their noses at the law, claiming "i am not under the law because i am under grace". On the flip side i have seen some imply there was no grace before and during the Law. I wish to show that from Adam til now, there has always been law and there has always been grace, and that Yeshuah is the fulfillment of both. i will try to be brief so as to not make this a book Adam - Adam was under the law of "Thou shalt not eat of this tree". We know that Adam ate of the tree following his wife. Adam in reality was the only man that ever lived, who was in the position of playing the role played by Yeshuah (Jesus) Himself, as Savior of the world. We know though that when he fell, he doomed all mankind, and no one but the man, our God, Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ could now play this part for us. Before his fall though Adam could very well have gone straight to God and said "Lord, my wife has eaten of the fruit... i KNOW your law says she must die. She is my gift to me from you though, and i love her... PLEASE... let her live and take my life as a ransom for hers and let me pay her price... Would God have accepted this? Adam was perfect, sinless, and qualified as her sacrifice, but alas he ate too and eliminated all mankind, neccessitating that God Himself would pay the price if we were to be saved at all. We see though that God had grace on Adam in spite of Adam's failure. We see the sacrifice instituted and God made them clothing. So Adam was under a law... and in failure of the law, he experienced the Grace of God by way of the sacrifice and more. Cain and Abel - These brothers were under a law of sacrifice. Cain fell miserably, offering an evil sacrifice, but God did not strike Cain down... Instead, He had grace on Can and He asked Cain, "Why are you so down and angry Cain? If youll only do good in your sacrifice you will be accepted". So Cain was under law, and yet he received grace, with God even pleading with him to do right... He received further grace by being banished to Nod rather than being destroyed for the murder of his brother Abel. Noah - Noah performed sacrifice under law. Yet we read the words "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." So then added to the sacrifice, was a new law... "Thou shalt build an Arc", and through this arc, God's law brought about destruction on the wicked allowing more grace for all mankind through Noah's obedience. Lot - We see that God in wrath destroyed the cities in the plains, and yet had grace on Lot, either for Lot's sake or Abraham's. All through time we see man under law, and we see God's grace shed on man. The fact that Yeshuah even came to this world as our sacrifice of course, being His greatest demonstration of grace toward us. Now we are in the age of grace as it is called. Many say we are no longer under the law. This i find to be in error. No the law cannot save us, but the law does direct us. Though we are under grace, murderers, adulterers and such STILL shall not inheirit the kingdom if they remain unrepentant. "Thou shalt not kill" is STILL a good and valid law, as are all the laws of Moses. If we break the law we are still guilty whether we take the name of Yeshuah or not. We are not saved by the law, but rather, all stand condemned when they break it. And it is GRACE that saves us from the law IF we repent and turn from our evil and conform to 'thou shalt not kill' and 'repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'. So we see indeed that we are now under a law of salvation. Just as there was once the law of "Thou shalt not eat of this tree, or thou shalt surely die", the law now stands "Repent and believe, and thou shalt surely live" The law demonstrates what we do and dont do to our neighbor if we love them, and how we respond to God if we love HIM. Repentance in itself is a law which opens the door to receive this grace personally. Law and grace are simply 2 sides to the same coin, and we cannot have one without the other and still have justice and goodness in God. It isnt a matter of law OR grace... ...it is a matter of law AND grace, and from Adam to now they have both operated for our benefit.

Yes and the word apologize comes from the same greek root... hency my opening post. I refuse to leave anyone the impression i am apologizing for being a believer in Christ. I am ashamed of the word, and i will DEFEND, i will not 'apologize' I'm glad to see others feel as i do

...in this day and age it sounds like i'm embarrassed and apologizing, grasping for straws as to why i believe. I prefer " HEY I'M HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE GREATEST BEING IN EXISTANCE!"