Thanks for the info' on Obama re' Immanuel, Keith.

You seem to know more than our Murdoch School of Humanities, mate.

Only hope you'd still not prefer, Bush, Cheney and Co.

You could also be right about an outcome of Israel nuking Iran, especially if it is true that Iran already has nuclear warheads supplied secretly from somewhere.

Why not Putin's Russia, or even China, as a Canadian report has given rumour to?

Cheers, BB, WA.

Bushbred,

Yes I read the Murdoch humanities. They give me balance as I seem to read the leftie humanities in every other media outlet on this earth.

Within 4 years I bet you'd be praying for a return to the times of prosperity and security we've experienced under George Bush.

I thought we'd already agreed on the likelihood of Iran having nukes.

I saw Rham interviewed on Fox two days ago. He really really scares the crap out of me.

Indeed in an "UnPromised Land," the story of the attempted evacuation of Euro Jews pre Holocaust, it is suggested that Zionist Promised Land delusions and alleged opposition to repatriation in W.A.'s north formed part of the deliberations of the crown which in turn led to the overturning of the will of the Australian people and ultimately the refusal to grant sanctuary. Well worth a read. U.W.A. has copies from memory as does the Holocaust Museum in Melbourne.

" ... I suggest that you read a bit more archeological history into the origins of the jews. ... "

The most recent thing I heard in relation to this was at the time of the so called Promised Land, archaeological evidence suggests that the local people and incoming Moses crew lived together, and happily one assumes. Can anyone informed reveal more on this?

*bOAZy* I'm shocked. Only the other day U were preaching sugar and spice and all things nice - Love, 4giveness etc etc

Yr last post hear sounded very supportive of an Eye for an Eye. Makes me wonder, is there perhaps some Greater Truth that U wld like to share with us? Do u have a Messianic concept perhaps?

Dreamy :) yes.. I totally understand how my post sounds.

My personal faith based view is..that it will all pan out in the end, with the Almighty doing what He sees fit.

When I report historical points such as "God gave the Israelites the land from the Red sea to the Eurphrates"..I am reporting historical fact, (based on Old Testament scriptures) This does not however mean, that I myself want Israel to suddenly go on a huge land grab for that territory. BUT...I would understand it..... now.. the difference might not be apparent..but it is definitely there. To me.. if God is calling his people back to the land.. nothing will stop it.(Ezekiel Ch 37 please have a look)

When I comment "The Arab Muslims conquered Israel in the past..and now the Jews are taking it back".. yes..I do support this retaking in principle... for the simple reason it is no different from any turn of history, and it seems they have 'right' on their side..
a) It was theirs.
b) Arab Muslims stole it. (as did the Romans)
c) They are now reclaiming stolen property.

It can be argued of course that they took it originally from the Canaanites, but we must also remember they didn't just 'decide' to grab that land..they were INSTRUCTED to take it by the Almighty.

We can dispute that if we like, but I doubt it would change the view of the Zionists or Israeli settlers :) which is the crucial point.

I confess..I have a lingering human resentment against any historical outworking of Surah 9:29 (please read it) and the ill treatment of peoples in the name if Islam. (I also am repulsed by UnChristlike treatment of vulnerable peoples by the so called Church) The NEXT verse (9:30) should assist you in understanding the reasons for this. if you are still in doubt, then please read surah 19:88-91 and see how Christians are specifically vilified.

Note..the Hamas Charter only says what it does (and it only CAN) because of... SURAH 9:29 :)

Nowwwww to pesky Pericles....

Dear P... I don't know if you realise it, but your last post demonstrated a number of important points.

1/ When it comes to your anti Christian crusade.. you will goto considerable lengths to research and show by evidence that the Christian claim is wrong.
In the case of the authorship of John's gospel you showed this.

You also said "An honest person would say"...

But this is the problem.. An honest person (me) read the rest of that article you quoted from and found THIS!

<<In several publications, I have surveyed the external and internal evidence with regard to Johannine authorship. I have documented that the Church, from the second century until around 1790, has universally held that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name. When the apostolic authorship of John’s Gospel was questioned, and the tide turned against Johannine authorship, this occurred not because the evidence supported a different outcome, but because in the wake of the Enlightenment scholars reacted against traditional ecclesiastical dogma, and Johannine authorship became one of the many casualties of critical scholarship.>>

Which of course, makes your point about 'some believe' rather moot.
It was only questioned from 1790 onward..and this questioning is about as useful as a member of the public saying about a trial verdict of GUILTY "oh.. SOME people believe he was guilty"

2/ But when you are in 'Whack a MozzieWhacker' mode.. aaaaah..then all research and evidence goes flying out the window.. and you attack with 'rabble rouser'.. 'creating fear and loathing' etc.. not a scrap of actual research on the issue underpinning the whole "Islam is dangerous" mantra which I so often espouse..nope..just name calling.

IF.. you were as honest as you claim to be, you would exercise the same effort of research in understanding the 9th surah of the Quran..in historical context..and subsequent application and actually discuss it.

But...I'm not going to hold my breath for that refreshing dabble in honesty :) Still..I'll try to shame you into it over time.

cheers

Not that song again, Boaz.

>>When it comes to your anti-Christian crusade...<<

You pretend to believe that I am anti-Christian. It makes you feel better

You like to pretend that your religion is persecuted. It makes you feel important.

Both are figments of your imagination.

The fact that you clearly need the comfort that Christianity brings to your life is not a problem for me. And it is obviously important for you to believe in its certainty. But I do object when you use it – as you frequently do - as a weapon against other religions.

In order to do so, you claim for Christianity the mantle of infallibility.

>>An honest person (me) read the rest of that article you quoted from and found THIS!<<

So what? Unlike you, Dr Kostenberger - clearly an honest man - was being completely upfront about the fact that there are many different versions of the authorship of John's gospel.

He happens to disagree with them, which is his prerogative. He then puts forward his own theory.

One, as he is well aware, of a number of competing theories.

You seem to be claiming that all arguments have ceased, and that there are no dissenting voices any more, which is far from being the case.

Even Wikipedia, while not in any way an authority on which version may be correct, reports that...

"Scholars have debated the authorship of the Johannine works... since at least the third century. Beasley-Murray notes, 'Everything we want to know about this book [the Gospel of John] is uncertain, and everything about it that is apparently knowable is matter of dispute'"

You hold a dissenting view:

>>the Church, from the second century until around 1790, has universally held that the apostle John wrote the Gospel that bears his name<<

It might be useful to remind yourself that for this entire period, they also believed the sun revolved around the earth.

>>you would exercise the same effort of research in understanding the 9th surah of the Quran<<

And no, I'm not interested in your views on bloody surah bloody nine.