What about this:

"Hiku Mamtakeem, Vikulli Muhammadin, Zedudii Vei Zeyree, Banak Ieruszaleem."

Did I cut and paste that too? Try to Google it see if you find anything. How come I knew the Hebrew pronunciation? I also know Greek because I trashed you in the "s" debate.

For the links you provided, unless it comes from the lips of Jesus it's disclaimable, might as well find truth in Ezekiel Chapter 23.

Not sure why but you reminded me of.....

^ HAHAHA!!!

I don't know why people are quoting the so-called gospel according to John as if it could tell us anything about the actual words of Jesus.

As I noted before, the majority of modern NT scholars date it to approximately 95 AD, long after Jesus' death. Its style and content are so different from the three synoptic gospels that if they preserve much of Jesus' teaching, then John probably has little or none.

One clue that it is written late is the reference to Jesus' enemies as "the Jews" where the synoptic gospels call them the Scribes and Pharisees, a much more limited group. If the gospel of John had been written early by an actual disciple of Jesus, it is unthinkable that he would have referred to his fellow countrymen as "the Jews" as if they were an alien race. Another clue about the late date is how more of the blame is shifted away from Pontius Pilate and the Romans onto the Jews." This reflects an era in the history of the church when few if any Jews were coming into the church but it was making inroads among the gentile population of the Roman empire.

There are other clues that "John`is not singing from the same hymn book as the synoptic authors. In the synoptics Jesus does his miracles when a person appeals to him for help and shows faith, and when people ask for a "sign" (i.e. a miracle) Jesus becomes angry and tells them that it is an evil and adulterous generation which asks for a sign. John is just the opposite. The miracles are all called signs, and Jesus is represented as doing them in order to generate faith. Contrast the two resurrection stories. Jairus' daughter in Mark 5 is raised in a private setting. In John 11 Jesus deliberately waits a few days to allow Lazarus to die, and then raises him in a very public display to show his power. In Mark 4 we are told that Jesus taught the crowds only through parables. You will search in vain to find a single parable in John. More could be said, but that is enough.

^ That is very true, whoever argues with what you said ask them if they believe that Jesus said in Luke 19:27:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Cut their HEADS OFF. Before me. Does that sound like Jesus?

Of course the Muslims were delighted at this verse and is probably why they added Jesus as a might messenger of Allah along with Moses and Mohammed. It provides such a sweet justification for all those rape and murders. You know the most famous sexual position is called the missionary position LOL From Christian missionaries who brought the word of God.

That 125 dating for P.52 is under fire.

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

Quote:There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).

The problem here of course is that even C14 dating would have a wide enough +/- factor as to cover most of the 2d century anyway.

I recall a commentary which pointed out that gJohn stood in opposition to the synoptics on a number of points where jesus looked wimpy. For instance, "john" has him engage in a long philosophical discussion with Pilate whereas jesus stands there like a dope for the most part in the others. I'll keep looking for it. There were other examples.

(December 4, 2013 at 7:41 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The tenor of your answers leads to a very simple question: if so much of the Bible addresses right and wrong in a way that is not applicable to the modern world, what's the point of looking to it for guidance in matters of right and wrong?

Your answers have clearly demonstrated that looking to the Bible for worthwhile guidance is about as useful as reading the manual for an Apple II to fix problems you're having with your iPad.

Just curious but how would you say that this does not apply to the Modern World?

(December 12, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Ksa Wrote: What about this:

"Hiku Mamtakeem, Vikulli Muhammadin, Zedudii Vei Zeyree, Banak Ieruszaleem."

Did I cut and paste that too? Try to Google it see if you find anything. How come I knew the Hebrew pronunciation? I also know Greek because I trashed you in the "s" debate.

For the links you provided, unless it comes from the lips of Jesus it's disclaimable, might as well find truth in Ezekiel Chapter 23.

dude, you have been rightly identified as a liar, inept, and a fraud inside a 24 hour period. The fact that you have 'words' that even a search engine can't locate doesn't make you a scholar, it only cements you as a intellectually dishonest pretender. because without source verification you could just be pulling crap from thin air, which have proven that you are more than willing and able to do when ever it suits you..

Speaking of suits, Sunday is just around the corner are you ready for church? Or did you lie about that too?

---

(December 12, 2013 at 5:41 pm)xpastor Wrote: I don't know why people are quoting the so-called gospel according to John as if it could tell us anything about the actual words of Jesus.

As I noted before, the majority of modern NT scholars date it to approximately 95 AD, long after Jesus' death. Its style and content are so different from the three synoptic gospels that if they preserve much of Jesus' teaching, then John probably has little or none.

One clue that it is written late is the reference to Jesus' enemies as "the Jews" where the synoptic gospels call them the Scribes and Pharisees, a much more limited group. If the gospel of John had been written early by an actual disciple of Jesus, it is unthinkable that he would have referred to his fellow countrymen as "the Jews" as if they were an alien race. Another clue about the late date is how more of the blame is shifted away from Pontius Pilate and the Romans onto the Jews." This reflects an era in the history of the church when few if any Jews were coming into the church but it was making inroads among the gentile population of the Roman empire.

There are other clues that "John`is not singing from the same hymn book as the synoptic authors. In the synoptics Jesus does his miracles when a person appeals to him for help and shows faith, and when people ask for a "sign" (i.e. a miracle) Jesus becomes angry and tells them that it is an evil and adulterous generation which asks for a sign. John is just the opposite. The miracles are all called signs, and Jesus is represented as doing them in order to generate faith. Contrast the two resurrection stories. Jairus' daughter in Mark 5 is raised in a private setting. In John 11 Jesus deliberately waits a few days to allow Lazarus to die, and then raises him in a very public display to show his power. In Mark 4 we are told that Jesus taught the crowds only through parables. You will search in vain to find a single parable in John. More could be said, but that is enough.

More blind faith?

John's writing style would have been heavily influenced by his personally feelings towards 'the Jews.' This does not automatically denote a late writing. John was close to Christ and could have developed hard feelings towards them simply because he personally felt they took him away.

A later writing style would have nothing to do with turning against the Jews, because as most pastors know, the first century church was flush with Jewish converts, and after the burning of the temple in around 70ad almost all of the Jews were kill, burned out and or scattered across the land. Once the temple was gone their ability to sacrifice was gone, and Judaism as these men knew it (OT by the book Judaism) was gone. So again from where would this hostility originate if not from someone who remembered what had been done and the hard hearts that did all of this? Someone who was still perhaps being oppressed by the ruling class of Jews.

^ You say it's non-sense, FINE. I require a Jew to verify this pronounciation and translate it:

"Hiku Mamtakeem, Vikulli Muhammadin, Zedudii Vei Zeyree, Banak Ieruszaleem."

You placed your head on the guillotine by challenging me, the second a Jew verifies the validity of that statement you're fried pal!

Oh, but here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YsA45CuvFk

Get out of my forums, liar

(December 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Ksa Wrote: ^ That is very true, whoever argues with what you said ask them if they believe that Jesus said in Luke 19:27:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Cut their HEADS OFF. Before me. Does that sound like Jesus?

Yes it does sound like Jesus when ever He speaks with a parable. The vast majority of the parables he uses tells of a final judgement where the unfaithful are destroyed in some way or cast out into what amounts to Hell.

Are you so foolish as to not understand this? or are you cherry picking to try and change or reframe what Christ said?