51 replies

  1. “Implications for evangelism” ~ yes indeed.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There are a number of scholars who have accurately pointed out that the author of the Gospel of John had to have been a contemporary of Jesus; one who was most certainly a Hebrew of Palestine; a disciple and apostle of Jesus.

    For details, see THIS THREAD.

    Grace and peace,


    Liked by 1 person

    • James D.G. Dunn disagrees.

      “In preaching and devotional Bible study the assumption is regularly made that all four Gospels are straightforward historical sources for information about what Jesus did or said. Whereas, Scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John’s Gospel reflects much more of the early churchs’ understanding of Jesus than of Jesus’ own self-understanding.”

      J.D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press ,1985, pp. 31.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Dr. Bart Ehrman Disagrees:

      “But there is an even higher probability, bordering on certainty, that John the son of Zebedee could not write. He was a fisherman from rural Galilee. Fishermen were not educated. They were very low class peasants. John would never have gone to school. Where he lived, there *were* no schools. He never would have learned to read. Let alone learned to write. Let alone learned to write in Greek. Let alone learned to write sophisticated, philosophically informed prose narratives in Greek. I think there is virtually no chance that the historical John of Zebedee wrote the Gospel.”


      Liked by 3 people

    • John Shelby Spong, author of the book, “The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic” Disagrees:

      “Among the conclusions that I have reached in my intensive five-year-long study of John’s Gospel are these:
      1) There is no way that the Fourth Gospel was written by John Zebedee or by any of the disciples of Jesus. The author of this book is not a single individual, but is at least three different writers/editors, who did their layered work over a period of 25 to 30 years.
      2) There is probably not a single word attributed to Jesus in this book that the Jesus of history actually spoke. This includes all the “I Am” sayings and all of the “Farewell Discourses.”
      3) Not one of the signs (the Fourth Gospel’s word for miracles) recorded in this book was, in all probability, something that actually happened. This means that Jesus never changed water into wine, fed a multitude with five loaves and two fish or raised Lazarus from the dead.
      4) Many of the characters who appear in the pages of the Fourth Gospel are literary creations of its author and were never intended to be understood as real people, who actually lived in history. This includes Nathaniel, who is introduced with great fanfare in chapter one and is treated in John’s Gospel as one of “the Twelve,” as well as the enigmatic character called by the Fourth Gospel “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who is introduced in Chapter 13 and who stars in this narrative from then on up to and including the resurrection event. Between those two “bookend” characters, we run into such well-known figures as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman by the well, the man crippled for 38 years and the man born blind, none of whom has ever been mentioned before in any written Christian source and each of whom in all probability is nothing more than the literary creation of the author.
      5) John’s Gospel seems to ridicule anyone who might read this book as a work of literal history. For example, Jesus says to Nicodemus: “You must be born again.” Nicodemus, the literalist, says: “Born again? I am a grown man! How can I crawl back into my mother’s womb and be born again?” Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: “If you know the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him and he would give you living water.” The Samaritan woman, a literalist, responds: “Man, you don’t even have a bucket!”
      6) The Gospel also exaggerates its details, once more I believe, to counter any attempt to read it literally. For example, Jesus does not just turn water into wine, he turns it into 150 gallons of wine! Jesus does not just give sight to a blind man, he gives sight to a man born blind! Jesus does not just raise a person from the dead, he raises one who has been dead and even buried for four days, one who is still bound in grave clothes and one who, according to the King James translation “already stinketh” with the odor of decaying flesh!”


      Liked by 4 people

    • There is an argument that the “beloved disciple” in the Gospel of John is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this “beloved disciple.” However, Spong writes in point 5 above that this mysterious disciple “is nothing more than the literary creation of the (unknown non-contemporary) author.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • More from Dr. Bart Ehrman on the subject. He argues that the “Beloved Disciple” cannot possibly be the author of John, or even John himself.

      “The Beloved Disciple is one of Jesus’ closest companions. He is the one leaning on Jesus’ breast at his final meal, who asks who will betray him. Who were Jesus’ closest disciples? Peter, James, and John. The Beloved Disciple could not be Peter, because he is mentioned alongside Peter in a number of passages (almost in competition with him). He also could not be James because there are hints in John 21 that the Beloved Disciple would live a long time, but it was known that James was martyred fairly early on in the history of the first century church (already in Acts 12).
      That leaves John. And so there is a steady tradition that goes way back that John was the Beloved Disciple. And since it was thought that the Beloved Disciple wrote the Fourth Gospel, it started to be named John.

      Let me stress yet again that there is no one who calls the Fourth Gospel “John” until Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon. It is interesting that in later legends two particular proto-orthodox church fathers of the early to mid-second century, Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna and Papias – whom I have already discussed at length – are both said to have been companions of John the son of Zebedee during his apostolic ministry later in his life. Polycarp was said to have been his disciple, one who “sat at his feet.” Papias was eventually credited as being John’s secretary, and in fact to have been the one to whom John dictated his Gospel.

      Some scholars maintain that these traditions are historically creditable. I myself do not – I think these are legends meant to buttress the credentials and therefore the authority of Polycarp and Papias. It is interesting and worth reflecting on that we have an actual letter from Polycarp in which he quotes from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But not from John. Why would that be, if John was his teacher and if John wrote the Fourth Gospel? My view is that either John was not his teacher or he did not think John wrote the Gospel.”

      Why was the Gospel of John attributed to John?

      Liked by 3 people

    • “The Fourth Gospel was thought to belong to a mysterious figure referred to in the book as ‘the Beloved Disciple’ (see, e.g., John 21:20-24), who would have been one of Jesus’ closest followers. The three closest to Jesus, in our early traditions, were Peter, James, and John. Peter was already explicitly named in the Fourth Gospel, so he could not be the Beloved Disciple; James was known to have been martyred early in the history of the church and so would not have been the author. That left John, the son of Zebedee. So he [Irenaeus] assigned the authorship to the Fourth Gospel.” (Forged, pg. 227)


  3. Spong and Ehrman are not even Christians.

    Dr. White debated Spong, and Spong said homosexuality is not sin. For that reason, I don’t think he is even a Christian at all. google it and find it

    Dunn is too liberal.

    So, they carry no weight whatsoever.



    • They are still scholars on the subject, Just because they are to liberal for you, doesn’t mean we should throw them out entirely.

      Liked by 2 people

    • And your so-called “scholars” are too conservative. So what’s your point?

      Liked by 4 people

    • If an Islamic scholar did not believe that the Qur’an was a supernatural revelation from Allah, would you respect his scholarship?

      If an Islamic scholar doubted that God exists, created all things, is Sovereign, sent prophets and apostles in history, would you respect that scholar?

      If an Islamic scholar believed that the Qur’an was just a human book put together in stages by other authors/editors, adding to Muhammad’s original message, would you respect that scholar?


    • Ken, your red herring does not solve the problem. If an “Islamic” scholar questioned whether God exists, he would not be an Islamic scholar. But that’s besides the point. We wouldn’t just dismiss that person by saying he is a liberal and leave it at that. Rather, we would refute that person with evidence to show why his view is incorrect.

      You, on the other hand, simply dismiss the view of anyone who does not agree with your conservative views. That’s not very persuasive and if that’s the best you can do, then it tells me that these “liberal” scholars are on to something.

      Liked by 2 people

    • You just proved my point, Ehrman and Spong and much of Dunn, because they don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word or in the Incarnation or the Deity of Christ or that homosexuality is sin (Spong); or the Virgin conception and Birth of Messiah (even Dunn seems to doubt that), they are no longer Christian scholars. Conservative Christians don’t respect the post-modern methods of liberal scholarship, just like you just said “If an “Islamic” scholar questioned whether God exists, he would not be an Islamic scholar.”

      That is not beside the point, that is the point. None of these 3 liberal scholars are believers. Dunn claims to be, I think, but the logical outcome of all his scholarship, in my opinion, of what I have read, (I got three of his books on Paul Williams recommendations in debating with Paul W. here since 2012) – the bottom line is that Dunn does not really believe – since he doesn’t believe in the literal virgin conception of Jesus in history (as at least Muslims do); he really does not believe – the NT is just man’s musings over the meaning of life; not divine truth and revelation.


    • Lol, typical Ken. Just repeat the same nonsense.

      As I said, you need to prove that Ehrman et al are wrong by dealing with their arguments. Dismissing them as liberals doesn’t prove anything.

      If anything, your conservative scholars are less reliable because of their bias and suppostions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Then all these Islamic scholars are valid and “onto something” also.

      The new movement originated at the SOAS, University of London by two publications of John Wansbrough: Quranic Studies (1977) und The Sectarian Milieu (1978). Among the students of Wansbrough are: Andrew Rippin, Norman Calder, G. R. Hawting, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. With their work Hagarism (1977) Patricia Crone and Michael Cook set a milestone in Islamic Studies, since by provocative theses they provided maximal attention in the academic community. Later, both distances themselves from their too far reaching theses in Hagarism. Yet they adhered to the basically new academic approach.”

      When you guys use Ehrman and Spong, it is the same kind of thing if Christians use Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Waynesbrough, etc. as evidence.


    • Lol, you’re so clueless! You refer to decades old orientalist arguments that have been debunked as new evidence has come to light.

      Even then, these arguments were taken head on by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. They were not simply dismissed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • No point.


  4. the same principles that Spong uses to criticize the gospel of John are the same principles that led him to teach that homosexuality is not a sin; therefore Muslims should not use his arguments.


    • The law of God has been abrogated by the blood of Jesus, and every thing is permissible for you !

      It’s the “deep” writing of your prophet Paul
      “Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be mastered by anything.”


  5. Hello Ibn Issam,

    A good number of James Dunn’s skeptical speculations are subjective opinions based on unproven presuppositions. What I find more than interesting is the fact that he has never provided substantial critiques of the scholarship concerning the Gospel John provided by the late Bishop of Durham, for which the chair of the position he held for many years was named—i.e. the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity chair was named for Joseph Barber Lightfoot, the late Bishop of Durham.

    I put folk like Dunn, Ehrman, Spong et al. in the same category as Andrew Rippin, Michael Cook, Patricia Crone, etc.—full of theories, but lacking in proven substance.

    Grace and peace,


    Liked by 1 person

    • David,
      There are plenty of other scholars who doubt the traditional authors of the Gospels. European scholars are largely agreed (along with many American and other scholars) that John did not author the Gospel attributed to his name.

      Importantly, NONE of the four Gospel manuscripts make the explicit claim that their namesake was the actual author of the book. So how can anyone make that claim with any assurance? Why should I believe you over your own ambiguous bible?

      In the end, scholars you reference are also “full of theories, but lacking in proven substance.”

      Liked by 1 person

  6. From the above quote from Ehrman provided by Ibn Issam we read:

    >>But there is an even higher probability, bordering on certainty, that John the son of Zebedee could not write. He was a fisherman from rural Galilee. Fishermen were not educated. They were very low class peasants. John would never have gone to school.>>
    John may or may not have been able to write when called to apostleship by Jesus. But, he lived a very long life, and in the subsequent years, if in fact he did not know how write, he certainly could have learned to.

    >>Where he lived, there *were* no schools. He never would have learned to read. Let alone learned to write. Let alone learned to write in Greek. Let alone learned to write sophisticated, philosophically informed prose narratives in Greek.>>

    First, the Greek language had permeated Palestine for decades before the first century A.D. Many Hebrew folk of Jesus day could speak Greek, and a good number could read and write the language. [See THIS RECENT BOOK for detailed documentation on this issue.]

    Second, John moved to Asia Minor, and most certainly could have learned to read and write Greek in that environment, if he did not already possess those skills.

    >>I think there is virtually no chance that the historical John of Zebedee wrote the Gospel.>>

    I think there is virtually no chance that the historical John of Zebedee DID NOT write the Gospel of John—way too many external and internal evidences compels one to affirm that he did.

    Grace and peace,


    Liked by 1 person

    • “He could have done this, he could have done that.”

      Sounds like a lot of speculation without evidence to me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Acts 4:13 refers to John as “without learning” or “unlettered.”

      I find it hard to believe that someone who was uneducated fisherman and illiterate in Greek could, in a short amount of time, learn to read and write the language and then write sophisticated, philosophically informed prose narratives in Greek.

      Scholars are disagreed on who “the disciple whom Jesus loved” actually was. Some have even speculated that it was, a Jewish Priest, and bolster this by asking how would a fisherman, and follower of someone accused of heresy, have knowledge and access the temple?

      Other scholars have suggested the author as being even Mary Magdalene. While thers such as Loisy, Bultmann and Hans-Martin Schenke, question if he even existed, and consider “the Beloved Disciple” as a purely symbolic creation, by an unknown author.

      The title (“beloved disciple”) is also strange to George Beasley-Murray because “if the beloved disciple were one of the Twelve, he would have been sufficiently known outside the Johannine circle of churches for the author to have named him”.~ Keener, The Gospel of John: Volume 1, 84;

      The Gospel of John also uses the word “we” third person plural 21:24, which suggests multiple authors or editers.

      The fact is that NO ONE KNOWS for sure who the author of the Gospel of John really is, and that any attempt to name the author is nothing more than guesswork and speculation.

      It is more honest to simply refer to the Unknown Author of John.

      Liked by 2 people

    • some relevant quotes :

      Likewise, John is not attested to have lived a long life in all of the sources we have for his biography. A number of ancient sources actually state the John was martyred earlier in life alongside his brother James. Here is a valuable article that discusses the Christian sources claiming that John DID NOT live such a long life:


      Liked by 1 person

    • quote :
      As Badham points out, one of the sources we have for John dying earlier is in fact from a fragment attributed to Papias, which states “John the divine and James his brother were slain by the Jews.” So we have no certainty that John lived such a long life, let alone could author a complex Greek narrative by the end of it.

      “Papias was a contemporary of John. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John. This means the authorship of the Gospel of John could have been learned by Irenaeus independently of Papias.”

      Again, Papias in all probability knew an unknown “John the Elder.” One of our fragments attributed to Papias even had him reporting that John the Disciple was martyred, and when Papias specifically discusses “John the Disciple” he reports what “the elders” say about him, which does not suggest that he was a contemporary who knew him.

      As for the theory about Polycarp, Irenaeus never states that he learned from Polycarp who the author of the Fourth Gospel was. That is again speculation, something DagoodS notes in his comment below.

      taken from



    • Quote:
      “When church fathers were deciding which books to include in Scripture … it was necessary to ‘know’ who wrote these books, since only writings with clear apostolic connections could be considered authoritative Scripture. So, for example, the early Gospels that were all anonymous began to be circulated under the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John about a century after they were written … None of these books claims to be the written by the author to whom they are assigned … They are simply false attributions.”

      (Ehrman Forged, pp. 220-221)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Here are some quotes regarding the possibility of an uneducated, illiterate John of Zebedee having ever been capable of writing advanced Greek prose:

      “According the estimates of William Harris in his classic study Ancient Literacy (pg. 22), “The likely overall illiteracy of the Roman Empire under the principate is almost certain to have been above 90%.” Of the remaining tenth, only a few could read and write well, and even a smaller fraction could author complex prose works like the Gospels.”

      “Immediately, the language and style of the Gospel of John contradicts the traditional attribution of the text to John the son of Zebedee. We know from internal evidence, based on its complex Greek composition, that the author of this gospel had advanced literacy and training in the Greek language. Yet, from what we know of the biography of John the son of Zebedee, it would rather improbable that he could author such a text. John was a poor, rural peasant from Galilee, who spoke Aramaic. In an ancient world where literary training was largely restricted to a small fraction of rich, educated elite, we have little reason to suspect that an Aramaic-speaking Galilean peasant could author a complex Greek gospel. Furthermore, in Acts 4:13, John is even explicitly identified as being αγραμματος (“illiterate”), which shows that even evidence within the New Testament itself would not identify such a figure as an author.”

      Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels


    • i haven’t listened to these videos yet


  7. David don’t just make statementsure with no evidence


    • David Waltz gave lots of evidence – go read his article that he linked to on the Gospel of John.
      Thanks David for your contributions here.


    • Hello Ibrahim,

      You said:

      ==David don’t just make statementsure with no evidence==

      As Ken related, I have provided plenty of ‘evidence’, with links to well over 1,000 pages of evidence/s, supporting the Johannine authorship and historical integrity of the Gospel of John in THIS THREAD (which I also linked to in my first post in this combox).

      Now, with that said, you must realize that Dunn, Erhman and Spong make numerous statements “with no evidence”.

      As I pointed out above, the Ehrman quote provided by Ibn Issam has no supporting evidence—it is pure conjecture. The illiteracy that Ehrman speculates on is unfounded, for extensive studies have shown that literacy rates among the first century folk of Palestine were much higher than Ehrman thinks they are. Once again, see THIS EXHAUSTIVE WORK for evidences/support.

      [BTW, over a century ago Joseph Barber Lightfoot argued that Jesus and his disciples were not as illiterate and ignorant as so many liberals of his day were proposing. I find it more than interesting that the most recent scholarship on this issue is now supporting Lightfoot.]

      For those folk who are not willing to check out the mountain of evidences I have provided via links to scholarly books and lectures, I would like to end this post with the following:

      >>But we must bear in mind that a good deal of it [liberal scholarship] appears to be due more to the prevailing climate of opinion of our day than to any new evidence. It is interesting to notice that Westcott, who firmly held to Johannine authorship, was well aware of the three reasons A. M. Hunter gives for rejecting it…Westcott long ago took notice of these (and other) points. But he held that other considerations outweighed them, and that the best solution to the problem on the bases of the evidence available is to see John the Apostle as the author. Westcott has not so much been confuted as bypassed. Nobody seems to have dealt adequately with his massive argument. (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, 1971, pp. 8, 9 – bold emphasis mine.)>>

      Grace and peace,



    • “Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them.” ~ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355

      “Most 19th-century scholars denied historical value of the work, largely basing their conclusions on seven particular theses: first, that the tradition of authorship by John the Apostle was created ex post facto to support the book’s authority; second, that the book does not proceed even indirectly from an eyewitness account; third, that the book was intended as an apologetic work, not a history; fourth, that the Synoptic tradition was used and adapted very freely by the author; fifth, that these deviations are not due to the application of other sources unknown to the authors of the Synoptic gospels; sixth, that the discourses in the Gospel express not Jesus’ words, but those of the evangelist; and therefore, that the fourth Gospel has no value in supplementing the Synoptics. Some 19th-century scholars, however, agreed with the traditional authorship view.” ~ Renan’s Vie de Jésus (Life of Jesus) which praised the historical and geographical details present in the Gospel.

      F.C. Baur (1792–1860) proposed that John was solely a work of synthesis of thesis-antithesis according to the Hegelian model—synthesis between the thesis of Judeo-Christianity (represented by Peter) and the antithesis of Gentile Christianity (represented by Paul). He also cited in the epistles a synthesis with the opposing dualist forces of Gnosticism. As such, he assigned a date of 170 to the Gospel.


    • Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: Volume One. p. 84 notes, “One could argue that the beloved disciple is not one of the Twelve because he is not mentioned by the ‘beloved disciple’ until the last discourse and passion narrative (one could also use this to separate sections of the gospels into sources).” See also Robert Kysar, John, the maverick Gospel, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976), 919


  8. Abdullah1423
    You left out a lot of the context of the passage ( and did not even give the reference so that people can look it up – but I know the reference) The apostle did not mean that homosexuality is not a sin by that statement that you plucked out of context. All of the law was not abrogated; only some of it – the moral law still stands and it condemns sinners. The parts of the law that was abrogated was the ceremonial sacrificial temple laws and food laws (Mark 7:19; Acts chapters 10-11) and civil punishment laws. The penalty for serious sin that someone was unwilling to repent of was ex-communication from the church – see 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.

    you quoted verse 12 but left out the surrounding context.

    I Corinthians 6:9-20

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

    12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.


    • Not at all!
      Let me ask you this, do you know the difference between ( you must not) & ( you should not) when you instruct your children?

      If everything is ( lawful), how does X become a sin then? You say it’s ( LAWFUL)?!
      What your prophet Paul taught you is that you can do whatever you want but you shouldn’t! However, it’s not a sin and still you can do it otherwise the blood of Jesus has no effect in the first place!
      This’s the satanic “deep” writing of your prophet, and it’s the theme of almost all his “deep” writings. The end of the passage contradicts its beginning.

      “only some of it – the moral law still stands and it condemns sinners”
      In which base you decide while Jesus had warned you
      ” So if you ignore (((the least)))commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
      Jesus not only had wraned to break the law, but also he warned to teach so! Imagine!
      Also, Your church fathers had different set of which law that you must keep. It depends, it seems, on which kind of hypocrisy christians adopt in each era. It’s an updated religion since it’s a man made one!

      People can easily copy and paste that passage to look at it, btw. You don’t need to be a Sherlock Holmes !


  9. What your prophet Paul taught you is that you can do whatever you want but you shouldn’t!

    You think that’s what he meant?

    See Romans 6:1-7 with Romans 5:19-21

    “May it never be!” “God forbid !” (no way !!)

    It is equivalent to your “Istaqfr’allah!” استغفرالله


    • So God forbid, but it’s lawful? Answer this equation if you can!


    • The law is holy and righteous and good” – Romans 7:12

      “We know that the law is good, if used properly / lawfully . . . ”
      see 1 Timothy 1:8-11


    • But then you don’t even follow the Mosaic law, even though Ezekiel says that it would be established forever! So much for the “holy” law.


    • Ken, let’s assume that you’re right about your prophet Paul based on Roman7, which is NOT true.
      If everything is ((lawful)) according to Paul, how do you consider x as a sin? Any answer for this “deep” writing from that man?
      May you answer this simple question?

      Regarding Roman7,
      What you need only is to apply the standard rule when you read to that man that I mentioned before, which is : “The end of the passage contradicts its beginning”.
      The irony here is that your translation titled that passage as the following
      (Released From the Law, Bound to Christ)!
      Just read verse 7-10 to know what he meant by “holy”!, which is a very satanic concept with no shred of doubt!
      The summary of that passage is that God gave a a law which doesn’t fit with our nature! The same thing has been said in 1 Timothy!

      That man described the true Jesus’ disciples as nothing “for God has no favorites” ! while Jesus had said about them “I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” For whom should we believe?
      I’ve heard with my ears pastor Steven Anderson saying that disciples of Jesus didn’t do the work as the Paul did! You can see how you follow him more than anything.

      Finally, don’t forget the concept of life that Paul applied
      “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.”, so how can we trust him when he said the law is holy”, if he really had said that?

      Because you know your bible very well, I know that I didn’t give any new information. It’s just the spirit of pride that makes you resist the truth.
      “And when it is said to him, “Fear Allah,” pride in the sin takes hold of him. Sufficient for him is Hellfire, and how wretched is the resting place.” QT 2:206

      Liked by 1 person

  10. The cannot cut and paste when you don’t give the reference; I can because I know the Bible pretty well.


    • Just try with the teacher google, and you will see!

      “I can because I know the Bible pretty well.”
      Farsi attitude again! Give me break!


  11. The NT never teaches “do whatever you want (go ahead and sin).

    Galatians 5:16-17

    Romans 6:1-2

    Most scholars recognize that Paul was quoting a Corinthian proverb “all things are lawful for me” – he is refuting that, because they misunderstood what he was saying about the law.

    I Corinthians 6:9-11 makes that clear.


  12. Even Bird seems to admit that there is a huge chasm between Luke and John….”Victor Hugo to Matrix.”

    What I don’t understand is why Christians don’t just admit the facts.

    The overwhelming evidence makes very clear that Bible is not the Ipsissima verba or even the “inspired word of God”, but that it is rather a collection of books and letters written by fallible men. Once this is accepted it then allows Christians the freedom to jettison the controversial manmade false doctrines that have entered into their religion, (Original sin; faith based redemption; rejection of the Law; deity of Christ; atonement, etc) and also gives them the room to reassess and reform Christianity to be more in line the actual teachings of the historical Jesus, and to realign more closely with the beliefs of the two Abrahamic sister faiths.

    One would think that would be a good thing.

    Otherwise, to those who care to investigate, Christianity will always appear to be just one innovation after another and so on, based on a very successful heresy from the beginning.

    Liked by 2 people

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: