Discovered on a faded scrap of papyrus, the words "Jesus said to them, 'My wife …'"
Options
Comments
-
DROSODAMFUNNY wrote: »
IM SURE YOU ALSO HAVE ALOTTA PROBLEM WITH THINGS THAT GO ON AT YOUR JOB, BUT U STILL GO ANYWAY..HAF BAYKED wrote: »HAF BAYKED wrote: »? the note, i been hearing that ? for years.....i got a problem with a lot of ? in the church and thats why i dont go now....
DO LET WHAT PEOPLE DO TURN YOU AWAY FROM ? ...
THE CHURCH ISNT PERFECT, BUT U SHOULD STRIVE FOR ETERNAL LIFE
i still read the bible somewhat and take what i can from it...i also pray....but the whole church thing is just a big game to me...i hate i feel that way but i've seen too much funny ? in the church mane...? is basically just business....a damn good business i must say... -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »It's pretty interesting. Jesus never referred to himself as being ? or the unique son of ? or ? in the flesh. Other people promoted that mostly, most notably Paul, who didn't even actually know Jesus. And the only Gospel that really goes out of it's way to portray Jesus as divine was John, and that particular book was the last of the Gospels written and was clearly in response to the debate over whether Jesus was divine or not.
do you even know what you are talking about?
John 10
30 I and the Father are one.”
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be ? .”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of ? came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am ? ’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Doesn't say Jesus IS ? though. -
Maybe it just me, but I just notice something. Whenever the argument for Jesus's existence comes up, it is about disproving that he ever did exist in respect to the Bible...or that the stories are parallel to other previously written documents about the Jesus's story. But, when something like this comes up we know where exactly where to look.
The guy does caution that it may not be in regards to the historical Jesus but sometimes we just can't resist taking it there especially when the "Christian" seems to be exposing themselves moment by moment. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »It's pretty interesting. Jesus never referred to himself as being ? or the unique son of ? or ? in the flesh. Other people promoted that mostly, most notably Paul, who didn't even actually know Jesus. And the only Gospel that really goes out of it's way to portray Jesus as divine was John, and that particular book was the last of the Gospels written and was clearly in response to the debate over whether Jesus was divine or not.
do you even know what you are talking about?
John 10
30 I and the Father are one.”
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be ? .”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of ? came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am ? ’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Doesn't say Jesus IS ? though.
"i and the father are one" meaning we are the same. meaning i am ? -
West Brooklyn wrote: »DROSODAMFUNNY wrote: »THE CHURCH ISNT PERFECT
shouldn't it be? It's ? 's "house" right?
OF COURSE NOT!
HUMANS ARE IN THERE...NO HUMAN IS PERFECT
THATS LIKE SAYIN EVERYONE IN THE HOSPITAL SHOULD BE WELL...
WHEN U SUFFER FROM SIN, YOU GO TO CHURCH TO GET BETTER.. -
first of all, the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written in 3 diff languages(Hebrew,Aramiacnd Greek) on 3 diff continents(Africa,Asia,nd Europe) written over a period of 1500 yrs, by over 40 diff authors(eye witnesses mind u) whom most have never met one another. Jesus is in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I say that to say this, what we have already known as The Bible is the finished product. No man can add or take away from what is in those pages. Let ur logic wrap around that fact.
-
and before someone says all the translations lost the true message of the Bible..no. Wrong again. You would have to go back to the original Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek manuscripts to translate. from that they were translated to Syriac,Coptic and Latin. If The Bible was "forged" or "re-written" that means you would have to change the original manuscripts to match the changes you made in the Syriac Coptic nd Latin translations. lol come on bro. lets get serious here
-
DROSODAMFUNNY wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »DROSODAMFUNNY wrote: »THE CHURCH ISNT PERFECT
shouldn't it be? It's ? 's "house" right?
OF COURSE NOT!
HUMANS ARE IN THERE...NO HUMAN IS PERFECT
Humans were supposedly created by ? , a perfect being, correct?
A perfect being cannot create an imperfect being or an imperfect world -
Jack_Riches wrote: »first of all, the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written in 3 diff languages(Hebrew,Aramiacnd Greek) on 3 diff continents(Africa,Asia,nd Europe) written over a period of 1500 yrs, by over 40 diff authors(eye witnesses mind u) whom most have never met one another. Jesus is in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I say that to say this, what we have already known as The Bible is the finished product. No man can add or take away from what is in those pages. Let ur logic wrap around that fact.
First of all, you don't even know who the authors of the bible were, so to say that it is wholly reliable is a bit of a "leap". Some of them were not eye witnesses and some of them contradict each other; for instance:
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My ? , my ? , why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Secondly, the church created the bible, not the other way around. The church chose what Christian literature would go in and what would not be included in the "finished product"Jack_Riches wrote: »No man can add or take away from what is in those pages. Let ur logic wrap around that fact.
Is that what ? said, or is that what man said?
Paul, for example, is an admitted liar and throughout the Bible, expresses his own opinions and puts forth his own law:
1 Corinthians 7:12: But to the rest speak I, not the Lord
1 Corinthians 7:25: Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
2 Corinthians 8:10: And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.
Dueteronomy 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”
2 Corinthians 12:16 Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!
1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of ? is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of ? is stronger than human strength.
-
Jack_Riches wrote: »You would have to go back to the original Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek manuscripts to translate. from that they were translated to Syriac,Coptic and Latin. If The Bible was "forged" or "re-written" that means you would have to change the original manuscripts to match the changes you made in the Syriac Coptic nd Latin translations.
This doesn't make any sense. There are certain words from one language that are not easy to translate into another; some languages do not have a word that would equal the word coming from the first language. For example, some foreign languages have words in which we do not have an English word for. On top of that, keep in mind that puncuation marks can change meanings dramatically: "I'm going to eat, grandma".."I'm going to eat grandma". Clearly, the addition or removal of the comma changes the meaning of the sentence.
-
DROSODAMFUNNY wrote: »THATS LIKE SAYIN EVERYONE IN THE HOSPITAL SHOULD BE WELL...
WHEN U SUFFER FROM SIN, YOU GO TO CHURCH TO GET BETTER..
They would be if doctors and nurses were perfect but they aren't
? , on the other hand, is allegedly perfect
So again, why is the church imperfect? -
u gave 3 out of 4 different accounts of eye witnesses who were there at the Crucifixion. in matthew and mark, he says "My ? , My ? ..." this was to fulfill the prophecy of Psalm 22. So Him saying that would be the FIRST thing He said. The LAST thing he said was "I thirst", also to fulfill another prophecy in Pslams 69, bcuz he was thirsty (being nailed to a cross beaten nd bloodied will do that to u), his throat parched, needed a drink to proclaim His last statement, which was "It is finished". I dont see a contradiction ANYWHERE.
and we DO know who the authors were, except in the book of Hebrews. and they WERE eyewitnesses.
Paul did NOT make up his own law lol. Clearly u have not the slightest clue of what youre talking about with that statement
as far as the church creating the Bible? lol c'mon bro. u cant be serious. the original manuscripts are STILL here. what ur sayin is the followers existed before the leader basically. that sounds SO logical to me.
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, ? will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, ? will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
-
BROKE LAND do not know ? about scriptures and he's always act like know what he talking about, know where in the scripture it says that the church is perfect that's the ?
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »It's pretty interesting. Jesus never referred to himself as being ? or the unique son of ? or ? in the flesh. Other people promoted that mostly, most notably Paul, who didn't even actually know Jesus. And the only Gospel that really goes out of it's way to portray Jesus as divine was John, and that particular book was the last of the Gospels written and was clearly in response to the debate over whether Jesus was divine or not.
do you even know what you are talking about?
John 10
30 I and the Father are one.”
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be ? .”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of ? came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am ? ’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Doesn't say Jesus IS ? though.
"i and the father are one" meaning we are the same. meaning i am ?
I've viewed it as they hold theThe Lonious Monk wrote: »It's pretty interesting. Jesus never referred to himself as being ? or the unique son of ? or ? in the flesh. Other people promoted that mostly, most notably Paul, who didn't even actually know Jesus. And the only Gospel that really goes out of it's way to portray Jesus as divine was John, and that particular book was the last of the Gospels written and was clearly in response to the debate over whether Jesus was divine or not.
do you even know what you are talking about?
John 10
30 I and the Father are one.”
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be ? .”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of ? came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am ? ’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
These things though have been debated so many times. Some say why then was he praying to himself, that is if he was ? himself. Wouldn't make sense to me, anyway. But then their are many contradictory things, like Jesus allegedly saying he does things by the will of the Father.. so guess he alone is not ? in that regard. All I know is ? is one and to me Jesus is his messenger and messiah to come again. -
Jack_Riches wrote: »u gave 3 out of 4 different accounts of eye witnesses who were there at the Crucifixion. in matthew and mark, he says "My ? , My ? ..." this was to fulfill the prophecy of Psalm 22. So Him saying that would be the FIRST thing He said. The LAST thing he said was "I thirst", also to fulfill another prophecy in Pslams 69, bcuz he was thirsty (being nailed to a cross beaten nd bloodied will do that to u), his throat parched, needed a drink to proclaim His last statement, which was "It is finished". I dont see a contradiction ANYWHERE.
My point is no one recorded him to have said the same thing.
There is also reason to believe that Matthew copied from Mark, using the writings of Mark as he wrote the writings of Matthew. Take a look here: http://dearestwarrior.blogspot.com/2005/10/some-evidence-that-matthew-copied-from.html
-
Jack_Riches wrote: »
and we DO know who the authors were, except in the book of Hebrews. and they WERE eyewitnesses.
List all 40+ authors -
Jack_Riches wrote: »
Paul did NOT make up his own law lol. Clearly u have not the slightest clue of what youre talking about with that statement2 Corinthians 11:17 wrote: »That which I speak, I speak it not after the LordLet your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
However, contrary to Paul, we have, in Luke, the prophet Anna whonever left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to ? and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
In fact, one of the missing gospels excluded from the Bible is the gospel of Mary, a woman.
-
Jack_Riches wrote: »
as far as the church creating the Bible? lol c'mon bro. u cant be serious. the original manuscripts are STILL here. what ur sayin is the followers existed before the leader basically. that sounds SO logical to me.
What I mean by that is that the church chose what Christian literature would be included and excluded from the finished product. The church created the Bible that you have today; you do not own the original writings. You have a translated, edited copy.
Paul "created" Christianity, based on the message of Jesus. It depends on who you appoint as the leader.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »Jack_Riches wrote: »
and we DO know who the authors were, except in the book of Hebrews. and they WERE eyewitnesses.
List all 40+ authors
Is that really necessary? Would listing these authors make you go..."OK, I believe you"? Besides, would you want to know that if there are 40 plus authors that they are reliable or credible? -
It is very necessary. It would surely help the Bible if we knew who the writers were and if they were credible or not. We ask that the authors of medical instruction at least have a reputation and education or else we can't take them seriously. I would like to know who wrote the bible and he claims to know. It is only right and logical that I ask him for details.
He says that there are 40+ authors of the Bible, then claims that he knows who all of the authors are and goes on to state that all of the authors were eye witnesses to what they wrote about. If he's going to make these claims, he needs to back them up, at least when talking to me. Otherwise, he need not have the audacity to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. -
The Mormons added onto the Bible. Where are their plagues?
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »It is very necessary. It would surely help the Bible if we knew who the writers were and if they were credible or not. We ask that the authors of medical instruction at least have a reputation and education or else we can't take them seriously. I would like to know who wrote the bible and he claims to know. It is only right and logical that I ask him for details.
He says that there are 40+ authors of the Bible, then claims that he knows who all of the authors are and goes on to state that all of the authors were eye witnesses to what they wrote about. If he's going to make these claims, he needs to back them up, at least when talking to me. Otherwise, he need not have the audacity to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Personally, I think you posed this challenge as an act of force and not a sincere concern for whether there are credible accounts of authors out there. This is not to say that you are the only guilty party in this. And what makes it "right" that he does present these authors in a world that doesn't suppose to know the difference between what is right or wrong? -
He is free to practice his spirituality as he wishes, as well as everyone here. I am going to step out of this debate. Who am I to tell one how to view their own truths? I do not wish to create suffering and confusion. From this point, I will converse strictly in a friendly manner.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »It is very necessary. It would surely help the Bible if we knew who the writers were and if they were credible or not. We ask that the authors of medical instruction at least have a reputation and education or else we can't take them seriously. I would like to know who wrote the bible and he claims to know. It is only right and logical that I ask him for details.
He says that there are 40+ authors of the Bible, then claims that he knows who all of the authors are and goes on to state that all of the authors were eye witnesses to what they wrote about. If he's going to make these claims, he needs to back them up, at least when talking to me. Otherwise, he need not have the audacity to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
once again. u are really misinformed. about A LOT. the fact that u said Paul created Christianity lmaoooo. do u even kno Paul's story? i doubt u do. and no one recorded him to say the same thing? whos him? Jesus?. Bro, do you selectively read? cuz it seems like u do. if i quote a Jay lyric, just a few bars, and someone else quoted another set of bars from the same song, and say YOU quoted the end of the song. is it right for someone who thinks like you to say Jay did not say those lyrics cuz all of our accounts werent the same? i thought so.
and ur other claims about missing books and what not..come on bro. there is absolutely NO credible evidence to support ur claim. you would have to refute what i said about the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS WHICH ARE STILL HERE TODAY, to even THINK about claiming such idiotic tales about mis-translations and additions.
Forget just the mormons...u wanna kno what plague awaits anyone who dies without Christ? Hell. -
@west_brooklyn. Just because someone has a right to their beliefs doesn't mean they are "right" in what they believe...or that they have a respect for what they believe. The problem with people in religion sometimes is that they really don't respect what it is they are believing. They are just using religion for their own selfish motives. It is good to question people about what they believe, but it helps to get a better understanding on what it is they are believing and why they believe it...and not just going to trusted sites or authors or pick on those you know are "vulnerable". Go into enemy territory from time to time and at least see if there are respectable people out there that do represent what they believe well. There in people in my life I don't particularly agree with, but they command my respect.
