blackbird

A 19 year old student from Sri Lanka is being charged with the murder of six people who he was staying with. This is horrific news. Capital punishment for murder must be brought back. If for nothing else but to carry out justice and send a message that this is completely unacceptable.

I agree but it's not going to happen as long as Quebec remains part of Canada. Mulroney tried to change the Constitution to give Quebec special status in the Meech Lake Accord and then the Charlottetown Accord but failed on both. Thankfully two provinces (strangely including Quebec) voted against it. It would have given Quebec special status but they probably realized they already have special status and they don't need to sign on to the Constitution. A referendum was held on the Charlottetown Accord and the people of Canada voted against it, thankfully. However it appears Quebec has been able to achieve special status anyway as they seem to be able to operate as an independent country with a lot of control over most things. Even so they also benefit by getting equalization payment from mainly western Canada while they oppose things that would benefit western Canada like an Energy East pipeline project that was rejected by Quebec. We can expect ongoing trouble from Liberals from Quebec as they try to shut down the energy industry in western Canada also. Trudeau put a Greenpeace radical in a key cabinet position to hammer Alberta.

Taxpayer money should not be used to support DEI at all. People should be hired on their skills, training, and experience. In other words by merit.

Nonsense. Loraine Boettner is an extremely professional scholar. I have his book "Roman Catholicism". This is very extensive work of scholarship which discusses all the major doctrines of Rome and goes into what the Bible says about each subject. This was not written by an amateur. It would be far beyond your abilities. It clearly proves the dogmas of Romanism are false and gives a detailed explanation from the Bible why they are incorrect or false. There is nothing in the Bible that says a person cannot read and quote what others say about faith and practices and biblical doctrine. The point which you conveniently ignore is that these sources quote and explain the Scriptures that are relevant to the topic. What is the difference between me explaining a verse and someone else explaining it? I don't understand what your point is in your last line. Your question is purely hypothetical because Jesus did not mean one must literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. You still have not explained what the point of eating his flesh and drinking his blood would be. It would be cannibalism anyway.

"This doctrine of the mass, of course, is based on the assumption that the words of Christ, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood” (Matthew 6:26-28), must be taken literally. The accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, both in the Gospels and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, make it perfectly clear that He spoke in figurative terms. Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). And Paul quotes Jesus as saying: “This is the new covenant in my blood. ... or as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26). In these words He used a double figure of speech. The cup is put for the wine, and the wine is called the new covenant. The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant. How ridiculous to say that they did! Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, “I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come” (Luke 22:18). So the wine, even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to hem, remained “the fruit of the vine”! Paul too says that the bread remains bread: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the pup of the Lord in an unworthy manner. ... But let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup” (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). No change had taken place in the elements. This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine. Another and more important proof that the bread and wine are not changed into the literal and actual flesh and blood of Christ is this: the literal interpretation makes the sacrament a form of cannibalism. For that is precisely what cannibalism is—the eating of human flesh. Rome attempts to deny this, but not with much logic. Clearly there is a contradiction in the Romanist explanation somewhere. Indeed, how can Christ’s words, “This is my body,” and, “This is my blood,” be taken in a literal sense? At the time those words were spoken, the bread and wine were on the table before Him, and in His body He was sitting at the table a living man. The crucifixion had not taken place. They ate the Lord’s Supper before the crucifixion took place. Furthermore, we do not, and cannot memorialize someone who is present, as the Romanists say Christ is present in the mass. But in the future, in His absence, these things would symbolize His broken body and shed blood. They would then call to mind His sacrifice, and would then be taken in remembrance” of Him (1 Corinthians 11:25)." --Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Incidentally nowhere does the Bible say we cannot read commentaries written by others. Loraine Boettner is far more knowledgeable on Roman Catholicism than I am. He wrote an in depth book on it. He explains clearly what the verses you mention mean.

After he talked about eating his flesh, he answered your question. " 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. " John 6:63 He said clearly it is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. He was speaking about eating figuratively and meant you must receive him by FAITH. That is what he meant. He made it clear he was not speaking about the flesh or literally eating his flesh. He meant it spiritually only.

Jesus preached believing in him. That is by faith. Not thinking you can eat him physically. That is false dogma. There is nothing more I can say now. I don't think you listen to anything. Your mind is made up. Let's give it a rest now on that subject. Lies. That is all you have. I won't waste any more time with you now. You are not listening to anything.

No, it is you that believe in false RC dogmas claiming you can eat Jesus in the host. Cannibalism and idolatry. That is not worshiping Jesus in spirit and in truth.

Nonsense. I believe on Jesus Christ, just not your false dogmas. "32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. " John 6:32-35 When Jesus said this did he mean he was to be physically bread to be eaten? Of course not. He was speaking metaphorically or figuratively. After he said he was the bread of life, the said "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst". That explains what he mean. We must come to Jesus in faith and believe on him; then we will never hunger (spiritually) or thirst (spiritually). There was nothing literal about him saying he was the bread. He also said elsewhere that he is the door. Again he spoke figuratively.

It was not founded on Peter. Peter was an apostle to the Jews; Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Nothing in the Bible supports the idea the church was founded on Peter. The Bible clearly teaches it was founded on the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. "19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:19, 20

Of course you don't want to hear about the true history. Scripture was completed 2,000 years ago and of course does not record the history in the past 2,000 years. But it is an eye-opener to know what happened. "by their fruits ye shall know them"

So you think it was ok that the Roman church in the past persecuted and burned at the stake those who they considered as heretics. No church that did that kind of thing could have been a true church, not to even begin about all the false doctrines. So rejecting Roman Catholic dogma and the RC church and forming one's own church or group is "attacking the church"? Many of these so-called heretics in the past centuries believed in sola Scriptura and were persecuted for that. You sound like a papal extremist from the Dark Ages.

There were many before Luther who rejected the apostasy and false dogmas of Rome. Many of these persecuted Christians believed in sola Scriptura. One such reformer was Beregarius whom you can read about below. This was over 500 years before Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the church door at Wittenburg. " Persecution of the Waldenses in France Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness. The principal among these was Berengarius, who, about the year 1000, boldly preached Gospel truths, according to their primitive purity. Many, from conviction, assented to his doctrine, and were, on that account, called Berengarians. To Berengarius succeeded Peer Bruis, who preached at Toulouse, under the protection of an earl, named Hildephonsus; and the whole tenets of the reformers, with the reasons of their separation from the Church of Rome, were published in a book written by Bruis, under the title of "Antichrist." By the year of Christ 1140, the number of the reformed was very great, and the probability of its increasing alarmed the pope, who wrote to several princes to banish them from their dominions, and employed many learned men to write against their doctrines. In A.D. 1147, because of Henry of Toulouse, deemed their most eminent preacher, they were called Henericians; and as they would not admit of any proofs relative to religion, but what could be deduced from the Scriptures themselves, the popish party gave them the name of apostolics. At length, Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a native of Lyons, eminent for his piety and learning, became a strenuous opposer of popery; and from him the reformed, at that time, received the appellation of Waldenses or Waldoys. Pope Alexander III being informed by the bishop of Lyons of these transactions, excommunicated Waldo and his adherents, and commanded the bishop to exterminate them, if possible, from the face of the earth; hence began the papal persecutions against the Waldenses. The proceedings of Waldo and the reformed, occasioned the first rise of the inquisitors; for Pope Innocent III authorized certain monks as inquisitors, to inquire for, and deliver over, the reformed to the secular power. The process was short, as an accusation was deemed adequate to guilt, and a candid trial was never granted to the accused. The pope, finding that these cruel means had not the intended effect, sent several learned monks to preach among the Waldenses, and to endeavor to argue them out of their opinions. Among these monks was one Dominic, who appeared extremely zealous in the cause of popery. This Dominic instituted an order, which, from him, was called the order of Dominican friars; and the members of this order have ever since been the principal inquisitors in the various inquisitions in the world. The power of the inquisitors was unlimited; they proceeded against whom they pleased, without any consideration of age, sex, or rank. Let the accusers be ever so infamous, the accusation was deemed valid; and even anonymous informations, sent by letter, were thought sufficient evidence." Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

There were many and they were persecuted by the Church of Rome. It was during the Dark Ages. Papal Persecutions 2. Persecution of the Waldenses in France 3. Persecutions of the Albigenses 4. The Bartholomew Massacre at Paris " CHAPTER 4 Papal Persecutions Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to the pagan world. We come now to a period when persecution, under the guise of Christianity, committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the "dark ages." The kings of the earth, gave their power to the "Beast," and submitted to be trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the papal chair, as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany. The storm of papal persecution first burst upon the Waldenses in France." You can read about it in Fox's Book of Martyrs available online: Foxes Book of Martyrs : John Foxe : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I have a KIndle book I bought on Amazon for a dollar or so called "UNRESTRICTED WARFARE - China's Master Plan to Destroy America" by Qiao Lang and Wang Xiangsui. I read a little of it but have been too busy to read the whole thing at present. You can get it on Amazon. Unrestricted Warfare is the People's Liberation Army manual for asymmetric warfare, strategically and tactically, using weapons not limited to bullets, bombs, missiles and artillery shells. This book appears to have been written by two PLA officers who advocated the strategy described. The thing about biological weapons is they could be used without openly being in a hot war and they can be used without being detected as the perpetrator. I see biological weapons as an absolute tool in the arsenal. Canada has been a extremely naive country about the whole subject of foreign interference, threats, and foreign affairs. I am convinced government has fallen under the influence of foreign powers long ago and could be one reason we are a weak contributor to NATO. Canada does not meet its commitment of 2% of GDP for military spending and falls far short. For some strange reason, many in the Liberal and NDP are very pacifist although they would never admit it. They seem to think that Canada should somehow be as neutral as possible in the world and they would strip Canada of any military if they had the chance. They blindly trust such organizations as the U.N. to take care of us which of course is a useless hope. Canada is allowing popular opinion to determine armed force spending and priorities. I see this as a very dangerous position to be in. Canada's government is largely pacifist and believes in talk more than real action on the world stage. The openness of our system means foreign powers can have a very effective influence in our system at every level of government. I don't even know if there is anything we can do about it. Even the committee presently investigating foreign interference is weak and impotent and it appears the public has no right to know much of what is going on.

Liberals/NDP don't care what Canadians think. We don't have much of a democracy. They know they can do whatever they feel like. They manipulate the media and manipulate other politicians and the system to scam us.

What a load. Carbon taxes in Canada have done nothing to slow or stop emissions. Canada's emission are miniscule compared with the rest of the world. Canada emits about 1.5% of the global total. So why are we being punished with carbon taxes and higher cost of living as a result? We are being scammed by the liberal/NDP scam artists and media.

Are you asking for scientific proof or some kind of verse that states sola Scriptura? If that is the game you are playing, you might as well forget it. That is not how truth is revealed. The doctrine of sola Scriptura is simply the overwhelming theme of the Bible, i.e. that Scripture is God's revelation to man and anything that contradicts it is wrong. But there are also specific verses which point to that fact. For example, a few verses in the last chapter of the Bible. " 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. " Revelation 22:18, 19 " 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: " 2 Timothy 3:16 These verses are just an example of how the Bible shows that it is the source of all truth regarding faith and practice. It shows that anything that is contrary to Scripture must be rejected. Therefore all the man-made dogmas and practice that Rome invented and which are contrary to the Bible must be rejected. " 6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. " 1 Corinthians 4:6 In other words, we are not to elevate what men say above Scripture. Scripture takes precedence over the ideas of men. Tradition was invented by men. If it is contrary to Scripture, we are to reject it. We are never to "think of men above that which is written" (Scripture) "15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. " 2 Timothy 2:15 Again Paul exhorts us to study the Scripture and follow it. Tradition can never be contrary to Scripture or superior to it.

The rosary and prayer called The Hail Mary is a very common prayer that many Catholics say throughout the world as you know. You are being deceptive or completely naive. "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." This is clearly idolatry. First off Mary is not the Mother of God. She was the mother of Jesus earthly body. That is it. Where in the Bible is Mary the "Mother of God"? So saying the rosary with these words is praying to Mary as if she is a god. Obviously idolatry. Another doctrine of Mary that was invented is the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception. It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. Praying to Mary as if she is omni-present is elevating her to the status of a god. Claiming she is the "Mother of God" is also idolatry. Nobody can legitimately pray to anyone other than God or it is idolatry. Again these are man-made inventions that are contrary to the Bible.

Worship of Mary and the saints is an obvious one. It is contrary to the ten commandments for example where it says to worship God only. Worshiping anyone or anything other than God is idolatry. That is the definition of idolatry.

I just quoted Isaiah 8:20 which says if they speak not according to the word, it is because there is no light in them. What does that tell you? It says to me that any belief or practice that is contrary to Scripture is false and must be rejected. That is simple logic. Any tradition that is against Scripture is false. I just listed some of them.

"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16 "20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. " Isaiah 8:20 These verses demonstrate that the Bible came from God and is infallible. This is not true for tradition unless the tradition is in accordance with the Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible to prove that the beliefs and practices of tradition are infallible. Some might be and those that are in accordance with Scripture would of course be acceptable. But much of Roman Catholic beliefs and practices are contrary to Scripture and therefore must be rejected. Can you prove that all RC traditions are in accordance with the Bible? Of course not. When the Scripture speaks about traditions it is speaking about traditions which are in accordance with Scripture, not traditions that oppose Scripture. Where does the Bible give men the power to invent new traditions, that are contrary to Scripture? It doesn't. Here are a few examples of some that are contrary to Scripture and therefore are false beliefs or practices. 1. Worship of Mary. (idolatry) 2. Mary being the "Mother of God". (God has no mother) 3. Worship or veneration of saints. (idolatry) 4. Worship of the wafer. 5. Purgatory. 6. Mass. (Jesus offered himself once and for all according to Hebrews, never to be repeated) 7. Confessing sins to priests and receiving forgiveness from a priest. Only God can forgive sin and priests cannot be mediators between God and men. "6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. " John 14:6 I would conclude that tradition has given the RCC many false doctrines and practices and must be rejected as false.

Of course sola scriptura is true. God gave us his word in the form of the Bible. If sola scriptura is not true, then how do we know what is truth concerning faith and practices? If the Bible is not the infallible and complete source of truth, then what is? There has to be an absolute source of truth and there is. It is the Bible. This interesting article explains why sola scriptura is a fact and why it is important. "The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!” The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine—taught by an apostle, no less—to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6–9. Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one’s spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice. On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues? The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2). Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable." What is sola scriptura? | GotQuestions.org

I do believe in sola scriptura. sola scriptura deflnition : Sola scriptura (Latin for ' by scripture alone ') is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. - wikipedia The definitions says what I believe. Scripture is the sole infallible source. That does not mean a person cannot read what various theologians and others believe about a topic, doctrine, or parts of the Bible. The term "sola scriptura" does not imply or mean one cannot read commentaries or articles on Biblical subjects. You seem to think sola scriptura means a person can read nothing else or quote nothing else. The only thing sola scriptura means is that the Bible is the infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. That means other things can be read and considered but they are not to be considered as infallible. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to read or quote what others say about the Bible. There are some verses that are not always easy to understand and it sometimes helps to read what others have to say who may have spent a great deal of time studying a topic in the Bible.

Awesome!