RE: "The bible test" Answered.
December 12, 2013 at 9:53 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2013 at 10:06 pm by Drich.)
(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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aa57d/aa57de4a1bd139a0483e48b20f973862f2b2ff31" alt="ROFLOL ROFLOL"
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.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebccf/ebccfd9a76107a2b9dedd41b62e2f634f98f1736" alt="Jerkoff Jerkoff"
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.