Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Martin Luther: Jesus Committed Adultery Thrice (Refuted!!!)

Martin Luther also negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther’s Table Talk, whose authenticity has never been challenged even though the coarser passages are cause for embarrassment. Arnold Lunn writes:


Weiner quoted a passage from the Table Talk in which Luther states that Christ committed adultery three times, first with the woman at the well, secondly with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery “whom he let off so lightly. Thus even Christ who was so holy had to commit adultery before he dies”. [1]

Refuted: Christians/Non-Christians who accuse Jesus (p) of adultery

Christians (and Non-Christians) who make such wild and absurd suggestions of adultery (as above) have NO evidence for their claims whatsoever. They are simply attempting to malign the good name of Jesus (p).

A quick point on the woman “whom he let off so lightly”; this story of Jesus (p) showing mercy to the adulteress, in John 8, is believed to be a fabrication - a forgery – it is not present in the earlier manuscripts of John.

The fact these enemies of Jesus (p) unwittingly resorted to further fabrications to prop up their unsupported allegations against Jesus is indicative of the empty nature of their slanders.

There is NO evidence that Jesus (p) committed these sins. It would be unjust (and sinful) for Christians (and Non-Christians) to make these allegations.

Muslims honour Jesus (p)

The fact that it is the Muslims who have protected the good name of BOTH Jesus and Mary (pbut) over the centuries speaks volumes as to who are the brothers/sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35)

May Allah send more peace and blessings upon Jesus. Ameen.

[1] The History of The Quranic Text from Reveltaiotn to Compilation - A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, M.M.Al-Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003, p269

Muslim admonishes those who claim Jesus to be gay

Bible: Muslims are Blessed

Learn about Islam

Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

68 comments:

MichiganRaider said...

Luminaries of Deception


Jerome is not alone in his candour. Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."


Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.


Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."

– Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)


John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople, is another:

"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...

For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...

And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

Anon1 said...

Oh my, another misquote from a Muslim. Care to give us the reference to Luther's Table Talk where he says this?

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya

Wow thanks for clearing that up. Here I was thinking that Jesus had committed adultery 3 times, and you came along and totally refuted that.

Its a good thing we Christians have Yahya Snow on the case to keep the good name of Jesus alive.

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya

can you give us the section of Luthers Table talk were he allegedly made this accusation?

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow. Part 1

TSK TSK TSK

"Did Luther really make these assertions? An electronic search of the digital edition of Luther's works, the massive Weimar Ausgabe (WA), uncovers no evidence that he did. Only two statements come even close to suggesting these unorthodoxies.

The first is a comment on Psalm 119:145 in which Luther interprets Mary Magdalene's actions at the tomb of Christ as an example of loving devotion. Mary "came beforehand at the dawn and with untimely haste and cried and called for her betrothed [sponsum] much more wonderfully in spirit than in the body. But I think that she alone might easily explain the Song of Songs."

Seemingly more problematic is a small notation from John Schlagenhaufen, one of Luther's close friends, which contains a recollection of something Luther supposedly said informally at his Wittenberg dinner table in 1532:

No one knows if Luther actually said this. The critical apparatus in the Weimar Ausgabe reveals the textual and grammatical problems in this supposed quotation. Schlagenhaufen recorded only a portion of what he remembered Luther to have said that day (and after how many beers?). No context is given.

Scholars know how difficult, if not impossible, it is to link the lapidary "table notations" of Luther's friends to Luther's own views. The editors of the American Edition speculate in a footnote that the "probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer" (LW 54:154)."

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Part 2

A more probable context is Luther's account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ's and Christ's perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of "the happy exchange" is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen's remembered notation becomes clearer: The "godly" Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul's statement, "God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

So Christ "becomes" an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else. He puts mercy front and center, and rejects the legalism which demanded that the woman caught in adultery be killed and the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene be shunned. The holy one becomes the sinner by putting himself into the situation of sinners, by loving and forgiving them, and ultimately by taking their sins on himself. For this gospel reason, Luther could also remark that God made Jesus "the worst sinner of the whole world," even though he also acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.


Trapped in a literalistic approach to Schlagenhaufen's contextless note, some readers have missed the metaphorical character of the remark, which Luther may have made, if he made it at all, with a twinkle in his eye. I'm confident that Luther would not be a fan of The Da Vinci Code--except perhaps with a beer in hand and that twinkle in his eye.

Actual Source

To read the above source with out a subscription.

WhatsYourDeal said...

@yahya

Do you think the Shia practice idolatry?

WhatsYourDeal said...

@radical

Do you think it is a coincident that Solomon is praising the breasts of his lover and he mentions Lebanon in the rest of chapter 4 in Song of Solomon? Me thinks that the Lebanese women have always been known for their voluptuous bodies. It holds true for the Shia, the Druze, and the Marionites in Lebanon.

5 Your breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle
that browse among the lilies.
6 Until the day breaks
and the shadows flee,
I will go to the mountain of myrrh
and to the hill of incense.
7 You are altogether beautiful, my darling;
there is no flaw in you.

8 Come with me from Lebanon, my bride,
come with me from Lebanon.
Descend from the crest of Amana,
from the top of Senir, the summit of Hermon,
from the lions’ dens
and the mountain haunts of leopards.
9 You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
10 How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
How much more pleasing is your love than wine,
and the fragrance of your perfume
more than any spice!
11 Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
is like the fragrance of Lebanon.
12 You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.
13 Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates
with choice fruits,
with henna and nard,
14 nard and saffron,
calamus and cinnamon,
with every kind of incense tree,
with myrrh and aloes
and all the finest spices.
15 You are[b] a garden fountain,
a well of flowing water
streaming down from Lebanon.

Bartimaeus said...

Yahya

Do you care to give the referrence for Luther. By the way it can clearly be domostrated that the only fornicating and comitting adulty was Mohammed himself.

And if Muslims truly honored Jesus they would bow the knee to him and confess him as Lord.

Yahya Snow said...

@Bart

Grow up. Even Prophet Muhammad's enemies did not accuse him of such. He never committed such acts.

AS FOR ASKING FOR THE SOURCE, Weimer edition ii, 106

The quote was taken from:

Arnold Lunn, The Revolt Against Reason, Eyre and spottiswoode, London, 19950 p233.

If you know German, the original can be cited.

@whatsyourdeal

No. I'd rather not talk about Shias. You can study their beliefs...

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

Read the article I posted. Your refutation has been refuted.

Bartimaeus said...

Yayha

I found the quote and the context and ther is no context. This quotes is all over teh net and I found it same way you did from prophet Google who by the way is much more accurate and truthful than another prophet that is often spoken on this blog.

As I mentioned there seems to be no context and we dont know circumstances under which Luther made these remarks.

But the reality is I am not here to defend Luther but proclaim Christ who you dishonor by refusing to acknowledge Him as Lord, Saviour and as the eternal Son of God

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You wrote....
"The fact that it is the Muslims who have protected the good name of BOTH Jesus and Mary (pbut) over the centuries speaks volumes as to who are the brothers/sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35)"

This is how Muslims protect the name of Jesus by killing his brothers and sisters.

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." Mathew 25:40

"An Eritrean Christian is facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia after being arrested for sharing his faith with Muslims.

Mussie Eyob was detained by the authorities at a mosque in Saudi's second largest city, Jeddah, on 12 February. He had gone there to meet and talk with local Muslims after speaking about Christianity at the Eritrean Embassy for three days. Eyob was arrested for preaching to Muslims, an offence that carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia..."

Source

"

WhatsYourDeal said...

@Ali and Yahya

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/QA/qa.aspx?id=86

Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah said it is ok for women to masturbate. He was the top Shia cleric in Lebanon. Your thoughts?

Yahya Snow said...

@Bart,

What are you talking about "Google"?

I have referenced where I got the quote from. Try reading the post. I got it from p269 of Dr Al Azami's book.

There is more ways to get hold of quotes than "google".

As for your claim of us insulting Jesus (p) by not believing in him to be God.

Erm, tell the author of Mark (anonymous) taht. Your earliest Gospel writer did not even believe Jesus to be God.

I'm hardly going to start to believe in the brother of the sincere Muslims (Jesus, p) to be God.

If you want to, that's up to you.

Going back to the quote, yes you are not here to "protect" Luther. Neither am I.

I'm here to protect the Prophets - all of them - including Jesus (p)

PS If you want to start showing a superficial level of respect at the very least (for Jesus) please do append "peace be upon him" after menting his name - shorten it to "p" as I do.

Thanks.

WhatsYourDeal said...

@yahya

Your thoughts on my comment referring to Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah's opinions?

Yahya Snow said...

@whatsyourdeal

Classical scholars of Islam would not agree with that view.

WhatsYourDeal said...

@yahya

Do you think his relatively liberal views could explain the apparent liberalism of Muslims in Dearborn? Most Muslims in Dearborn are Shia of lebanese descent. Fadlallah was revered in Dearborn.

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow Part 1

You wrote...
"Erm, tell the author of Mark (anonymous) taht. Your earliest Gospel writer did not even believe Jesus to be God."

Where do you come up with this nonsense.

First lets address your accusation in regards to Mark not writing Mark.

Papias wrote in his work entitled "Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles sometime before his death in 130 AD, which has been preserved for us in the following testimony by Esubius.

"Mark became Peters interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order of things said or done by the Lord. For Mark had not heard the Lord nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter who used to give teachings as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements to them. (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15)

Esubius not only get's his information from Papias, but also from the Church Father Ireneous.

Esubius also makes mention that Papias made careful inquiry and received his information on the Authorship of the Gospel of Mark from two men, a John the Elder, Aristion, who were both disciples of the Apostle John. (The Gospel of Mark James R Edwards p 3-4)

Also take note, if someone was going to forge a Gosple why choose Mark, why not Peter, or Paul, or any of the other disciples?

The mention that Mark wrote down things things as he heard them preached by Peter, and not in a chronological order is important.

Eusebius further elaborates on Peter "teaching as necessity demanded" by citing another source, the Church Father Clement of Alexandria.

"When Peter had publicaly preached the word at Rome, and by the spirit had proclaimed the Gosple, that those present, who were many, Mark as one who followed [Peter] for a long time and remembered by what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and he did this, and distributed the Gospel amoung those that had asked him.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow part 2

So now that I have proven beyond any doubt that the Gospel of Mark was indeed written by Mark and not some anonymous writer, I will now go on to discuss who Mark was.

The Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark was in fact John Mark, son of a woman named Mary, in whose house the early church gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) The same dwelling was apparently the site of the Last Supper (Acts 1:13-14; Mark 14:14)

At a very young age Mark went on a Missionary trip with Paul and Barnabas where he was responsible for attaining food and lodging. He quit this first mission for reasons unknown. (I will surmise that he was young, and wanted to go home.) Either way this caused a riff between Paul and Barnabas(Marks Cousin), who wanted to take Mark on a second trip. This rift was resolved with Paul taking Silas to Asia Minor, and Barnabas going to Cyprus with Mark(Acts 15:37-41)

Note: This might come as a shock to the Muslim readers that a dispute was settled with out bloodshed, since some early and present disputes in Islam were and are settled with murder and war.

A decade later Paul has reconciled with Mark, as he writes in in Col 4:10) " 10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.)"

Also in PHLM 24
"Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers."

And in 2Tim 4:11
" Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry."

And Finally Mark is with Peter in Rome, (1 Peter 5:13)
"he who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark."

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow part 3

So the author of Mark, is John Mark, son of Mary cousin of Barnabas, in whose house the disciples met after the death and resurrection of Christ, and it was in this very same house that Christ had The Last Supper.

John Mark accompany's Paul and Barnabas, then goes off with Barnabas, is later with Paul, and then finally with PETER in Rome.

There is your ISHNAD, you do believe in ISHNADS don't you?

In another post I will expose the rest of your accusations that Mark, the author of Mark did not believe that Christ is GOD, for the nonsense it is.

I do apologies to the Muslims that this is faith shattering to you. But your false faith in a false god is not my concern. I only edify the Church, and lift up the saints.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You said that Mark did not believe that Jesus was God. Then can you explain to me Mark 1:2-8

2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]


Mark when speaking of Jesus and John the baptist blends two prophesy the first in Mal 3:1 and the second in Isaiah 40:3.

Im Mal 3:1 the full citaion is below.
"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty."

So God is sending his messenger who will prepair teh way before GOD. The suddenly the Lord will come to HIS TEMPLE".

The Quote in Isaiah 40:3
" A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the LORD[a];
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God."

So John the baptist is the messenger, who is sent by God, to prepare the way before God. Who will appear at HIS TEMPLE (Mal 3:1) and this same Messenger is preparing the way for YHWH, making a highway for GOD"

So who is John the Baptist preparing the way for? Who will appear at the temple, and who's temple is it?

(Please do not respond with the nonsense that Mark did not know what he was quoting since he sites the whole passage as from Isaiah. I can show you more then ample evidence that this was a common practice among Jewish writers. That when ever quoting two prophets, the greater prophet is sited. So that would be a non issue, a false delima, etc... Instead focus on the passage itself)

Radical Moderate said...

Looks like I have Muted the Muslims AGAIN.

Anon1 said...

Oh, I would really love to see Yahya get off his prayer rug and debate the question: According to Mark's Gospel, was Jesus the Divine Son of God or the Brother of Muslims. But we all know he's all talk.

maratsafin said...

part 1 mr oap moderate

yes i do like radical moderates tone of triumphalism he sounds exactly like his Gods shamoun and white if people dont respond it means he wins!!!! lololol what a pathetic old man seriously you should let people like minoria try to defend the gospel contratradictions at least he does without resorting to childish behaviour.
First of all this site really exposes the arch protester against the roman catholics http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm have a good read protesters and make sure your faith isnt shattered by the disgusting man luther.
Now to radical moderate and his use of papias through Eusebius and irenaeus first none of them are held high in the world of 5 point calvinism which mr radical moderate holds to.
Papias was according to eusebius was a man 'a man of small mental capacity who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions' so you even have to wonder why eusebius even quotes from him if he dosent trust his memory.
The passage from eusebius regarding the authorship of mark is problamatic because papoas claims that mark wrote everything peter told him about what jesus taught and yet mark is the shortest of the gospels and in this gospel he always tries to hide who he is.
also in the passage cited by eusebius papias never quotes from mark that he heard from peter directly and in the related gospelthe author never mentions who he is and more importantly where he recived his information add to the fact that eusebius is known for making up rubbish about early church history and for thinking little of papias why would anyone take him seriously.
As irenaeus, this guy is a favourite of catholics but i am suprised a hard core 5 point calvinist likes to quote from him,do you know that iranaeus believed jesus lived until 50 years old!!! or that he was the first proponent of mariology? and his lie that papias was a hearer of john the apostle when it is clearly contradicted by papias in tha passage quoted by eusebius that he talked to people who had supposedly been with the apostles not the apostles them selves.

maratsafin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
maratsafin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

TQ , you have just confirmed the NT being equivalent to Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged) hadith. Next time when your buddies in christ proclaim that the bible is the word of god , you should point this fact to them.

Your argument is 100% copied from pages 3-6 , the online version of the book ‘The Gospel according to Mark’ By James R. Edwards

Gospel according to mark – James R Edwards

Analysis of your argument

(1) internal evidence
The only relevant verse is 1peter5:13 , the rest being red herrings. However it states of babylon not rome. Why the claim '..Finally Mark is with Peter in Rome..?

‘..I am quite of opinion that the apostle does not mean Babylon in Egypt, nor Jerusalem, nor Rome as figurative Babylon, but the ancient celebrated Babylon in Assyria, which was, as Dr. Benson observes..’

Babylon in Assyria not Rome - Adam Clarke Commentary

‘..that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria..’

Babylon in Assyria not Rome – John Gill Commentary

(2) external evidence
I repeat , your argument is 100% copied from pages 3 , 4 and 5 of the online version of the book. Interestingly in page 6 ‘..Although we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel , the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favour..’.

With all the ‘hoo haah’ , in the end it could not be proven that john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark. Faith shattering , yeah ...

We muslims would classify this as Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged)

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

Wow its been over 24 hours since my total refutation and no response from the snowman. Did I melt old frosty.

I see only maratsafin tried to give a response, but he quickly realized how foolish his argument was that he deleted his comments, put his tail between his legs, and crawled back into his hole to lick his wounds.

maratsafin said...

Part 1

yes i do like radical moderates tone of triumphalism he sounds exactly like his Gods shamoun and white if people dont respond it means he wins!!!! lololol what a pathetic old man seriously you should let people like minoria try to defend the gospel contratradictions at least he does without resorting to childish behaviour.
First of all this site really exposes the arch protester against the roman catholics http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm have a good read protesters and make sure your faith isnt shattered by the disgusting man luther.
Now to radical moderate and his use of papias through Eusebius and irenaeus first none of them are held high in the world of 5 point calvinism which mr radical moderate holds to.
Papias was according to eusebius was a man 'a man of small mental capacity who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions' so you even have to wonder why eusebius even quotes from him if he dosent trust his memory.
The passage from eusebius regarding the authorship of mark is problamatic because papoas claims that mark wrote everything peter told him about what jesus taught and yet mark is the shortest of the gospels and in this gospel he always tries to hide who he is.
also in the passage cited by eusebius papias never quotes from mark that he heard from peter directly and in the related gospelthe author never mentions who he is and more importantly where he recived his information add to the fact that eusebius is known for making up rubbish about early church history and for thinking little of papias why would anyone take him seriously.
As irenaeus, this guy is a favourite of catholics but i am suprised a hard core 5 point calvinist likes to quote from him,do you know that iranaeus believed jesus lived until 50 years old!!! or that he was the first proponent of mariology? and his lie that papias was a hearer of john the apostle when it is clearly contradicted by papias in tha passage quoted by eusebius that he talked to people who had supposedly been with the apostles not the apostles them selves.
there is also another problem with this scenario how on earth did these guys distinguish between who was a apostle or a disciple of an apostle when they were living so far away from were christianity started remember the heretics also claimed apostolic succession they making the same claims as those writing against them so this "isnad" as mr oap moderate tris to put it is weak and not reliable.

cont

maratsafin said...

Part 2

And another comment i noticed from mr moderate he claims that 1 peter is written from rome when the majority of protestant scholars including those he loves to defend say it is not rome but actually babylon and the roman interpretation is a catholic one and so again i have to ask mr moderate is really confused about what denomination he follows. like i have stated before his politics i as confused as his religious affiliations.
shall i also mention why peter could not have written the letters attributed to him? i'll tell you,how on earth can a poor man from jerusalem wrtite in koine greek especially one that supposedly fishes naked? he cant.
shall i further shatter your faith mr moderate? lolol shall i show you how malachi when read in context completely rejects the new testament readings of who the christ is? or that the law of moses is forever? or shall i metion how acts is so unreliable that it makes a statement straight away that contradicts the gospel according to luke and that of johns? that acts says next to nothing about the real disciples except for a few things but the real hero of the book is paul the false apostle and his pupil who tries to reconcile the real dispute between him and the jerusalem church but it never is because paul never goes back to jerusalem because he was not wanted. or shall i show the major disagreement bewteen paul and james and that the epistle of james is a direct rebuttal to pauls doctrine of justification by faith alone where they both use the story of Abraham to hight light thier argument. as robert eisenman has shown in his books that the man of lies in the qumrn scrolls is most probably paul and the teacher of righeousness is james the just, shall i go on and further shatter your faith mr Oap moderate? na i shall wait for your feeble response and let that be it you see unlike you i dont need to respond to every argument or comment from christians especially ones like you because most of it is hogwash.

maratsafin said...

Part 1

yes i do like radical moderates tone of triumphalism he sounds exactly like his Gods shamoun and white if people dont respond it means he wins!!!! lololol what a pathetic old man seriously you should let people like minoria try to defend the gospel contratradictions at least he does without resorting to childish behaviour.
First of all this site really exposes the arch protester against the roman catholics http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/matluther.htm have a good read protesters and make sure your faith isnt shattered by the disgusting man luther.
Now to radical moderate and his use of papias through Eusebius and irenaeus first none of them are held high in the world of 5 point calvinism which mr radical moderate holds to.
Papias was according to eusebius was a man 'a man of small mental capacity who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions' so you even have to wonder why eusebius even quotes from him if he dosent trust his memory.
The passage from eusebius regarding the authorship of mark is problamatic because papoas claims that mark wrote everything peter told him about what jesus taught and yet mark is the shortest of the gospels and in this gospel he always tries to hide who he is.
also in the passage cited by eusebius papias never quotes from mark that he heard from peter directly and in the related gospelthe author never mentions who he is and more importantly where he recived his information add to the fact that eusebius is known for making up rubbish about early church history and for thinking little of papias why would anyone take him seriously.
As irenaeus, this guy is a favourite of catholics but i am suprised a hard core 5 point calvinist likes to quote from him,do you know that iranaeus believed jesus lived until 50 years old!!! or that he was the first proponent of mariology? and his lie that papias was a hearer of john the apostle when it is clearly contradicted by papias in tha passage quoted by eusebius that he talked to people who had supposedly been with the apostles not the apostles them selves.
there is also another problem with this scenario how on earth did these guys distinguish between who was a apostle or a disciple of an apostle when they were living so far away from were christianity started remember the heretics also claimed apostolic succession they making the same claims as those writing against them so this "isnad" as mr oap moderate tris to put it is weak and not reliable.

cont

maratsafin said...

i tried posting responses in several parts before but the responses kept getting mixed and sometimes didnt even show thats why i deleted them but hopefully they are not getting mixed up now because it is on 2 long posts.

Radical Moderate said...

@ maratsafin

You should of taken your inability to post as a sign, to not post that rambling, empty and meaningless response. Honestly I had more respect for you when I thought you deleted it.


There is absolutely nothing in it for me to respond to, just empty threats, wrapped in rambling gibberish. You waisted your time in writing it and waisted my as well as other's in making us read it.

Honestly there is nothing to respond to since the only thing you could come up with it seems is

"shall i show you how malachi when read in context completely rejects the new testament readings of who the christ is? or that the law of moses is forever? or shall i metion how acts is so unreliable that it makes a statement straight away that contradicts the gospel according to luke and that of johns?"

If you could do any of that then you should of, it would of been better then reading the nonsense you wrote.

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

You said...

"I repeat , your argument is 100% copied from pages 3 , 4 and 5 of the online version of the book."

LOL putting aside the fact that I copied my quotation from the hard cover book sitting here on my desk. (I wish I would of known the book was online, would of saved me time in typing)

Its interesting that you have to "repeat your argument is 100% copied from pages 3 , 4 and 5" Since that is the book that I sited in my post. Either you are not very observant, or you have just demonstrated again that serious reading comprehension problem that you have.

Second you said I copied my argument. Can you show me on what page this is copied from

"At a very young age Mark went on a Missionary trip with Paul and Barnabas where he was responsible for attaining food and lodging. He quit this first mission for reasons unknown. (I will surmise that he was young, and wanted to go home.)"

Anonymous said...

Its a good thing we Christians have Yahya Snow on the case to keep the good name of Jesus alive.

LOL!

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Ha ha , didn't you copied the verses / opinion on page 4 of the book and expanded on it?

Your only defense is a pathetic rethoric of '..reading comprehension..'. The best part , from the book that forms the basis of your argument , '..we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the second Gospel..'. Hmm , you 'forgot' to copy that? You graduated from dodgy maths to dodgy copying.

Hey TQ again. You should be the spokesman for us muslims. The next time your brothers in christ proclaim that the NT is the word of god , you can correct them that the NT is equivalent to hadith that muslims classify as Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged).

Sometimes I wonder whose side you are on.

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

Wow really demonstrating that reading comprehension problem.

You said...
" didn't you copied the verses / opinion on page 4 of the book and expanded on it?"

I think I was clear in my original post, when I sited the source I was quoting.

"(The Gospel of Mark James R Edwards p 3-4)

I guess you must of missed that.

Then this is the best part, you seem to allude to something dubious because I did not include a quote from page six, but then you commit the vary dubious acted that you seem to imply that I committed.

You said..."we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the second Gospel"

Funny how you forgot to copy and paste the rest of the sentence.

"the weight of EVIDENCE WAYS FIRMLY IN OUR FAVOR"

Like I said I will only respond to you when I want to laugh.

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

Oh BTW was your shoddy math your own work or did you copy it from someone else?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Isn't it true , you copied from pages 3 - 4 of the book and expanded on it? The big problem here is that your copying is dodgy
- babylon you say rome
- you 'forgot' to mention '..we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the second Gospel..' , pg 6

If you cannot be honest , the very least , try to make it appear realistic.

Double confirm - you graduated from dodgy maths to dodgy copying.

My previous post : Interestingly in page 6 ‘..Although we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel , the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favour..’.

Errrr , you have comprehension problems??

Just reflect on the silliness of the author. He admitted that it cannot be proven that john mark was the author of 'the gospel according to mark' but say there is evidence in favour of such. What evidence is there? There is no internal evidence and shoddy indirect evidence. No wonder his admission that it cannot be proven john mark was the author of the 'gospel according to mark'.

However fundies like you are not be the sharpest tool in the shed. You keep trying to look for non existent evidence of john mark being the author of 'the gospel according to mark'.

Ha ha , my 'shoddy maths' did a good job exposing your dodgy maths. Don't you love it. Every post you make expose you as a bull shitter.

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

Like I said your always good for a laugh.

First, what I quoted from the book was the information the evidence, not the authors opinion.

As such I'm not entitled to quote the authors opinion.

Second, although I did not quote the authors opinion, the authors opinion backs up my claim that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, since he states that "the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor" Something you fail to quote at least 50 percent of the time.

What does firmly in his favor mean, to you?

Either way you beleive what you want to believe. It's not that you do not beleive that John Mark wrote Mark, or that Christ was crucified, or that Christ is God incarnate. You simply will believe any thing but, in spite of any evidence, regardless of how foolish it makes you.

So I will ask you again, your Math, is that your own work? Or did you copy and paste it from someone else?

Yahya Snow said...

Radical Moderate, here is some copy and psting for you from Michael Turton as to why the Gospel of Mark is in fact anonymous – we DON’T KNOW who wrote it:

The author of Mark has traditionally been identified with the early disciple John Mark, based on a citation of the writer Papias in Eusebius. The citation is usually dated around 125 CE, though some have moved it back to 100 CE. Eusebius writes:

"For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." (Papias, ECW)

This view is adhered to only by conservative exegetes today, as it has been clear for a couple of centuries that the Gospel we know as Mark cannot possibly be the Gospel Papias is referring to, even assuming that the citation itself is genuine and not a later forgery either made or discovered by Eusebius. As you read the Gospel, the complexity of its references, allusions, and constructions off the Old Testament, its attitude toward the disciples, its use of Cynic sayings and constructions, its familiarity with Greek literary conventions, and other factors will make it clear to you why few scholars today accept the traditional view. For a vigorous defense of the traditional view, see Robert Gundry's Mark.
The reality is that today no one can say who wrote the Gospel of Mark. Not even the writer's gender is known, though traditionally it is ascribed to a man. However, John D. Crossan (1991, p416) has pointed out that verse 14:9: And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her" may well be a slyly ironic reference to the author herself.
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_intro.html

Radical Moderate said...

@Snowman

You quoted and even put it in bold.

"only by conservative exegetes today"

So you site the opinion of a liberal, who disregards the evidence for Mark writing Mark, but gives no other evidence except to just deny the evidence in favor of Mark.

Secondly he appeals to John Dominick Crossen, a man who believes that Christ was crucified and his body was dug up and eatin by wild dogs.

Like I said "It's not that you Muslims do not believe in God, it's that you will believe anyone or anything other then God"

WhatsYourDeal said...

@radical

Even NT Wright praises John Dominic Crossan as an expert in the study of the historical Jesus and the gospels. Even though he disagrees with Crossan's conclusions, Wright has a lot of respect for him.

NT Wright > Acts17 sycophants

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

From you '..the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor..What does firmly in his favor mean, to you?..'

Lets quote it in full , pg 6 '..Although we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel , the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favour..'

You suffer from selective reading or what? The author admitted that it cannot be proven john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark despite his so call evidence. This means that his evidence is not good enough to qualify john mark to be the author of the said gospel.

This confirm what I stated earlier. Fundies like you are not the sharpest. You scour for non existent evidence to support the notion that john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark.

The gospel according to mark is equivalent to hadith that muslims classify as Da`if (weak) or Maudu` (fabricated, forged).

If you think its not my maths , show me the website that I copied such maths. My challenge to you. The very least , challenge the numbers I posted - can you do that??

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

You have not answered any of my questions.

First what does "the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor."

Mean to you.

Do you have evidence to contrary?

Second you said...
If you think its not my maths , show me the website that I copied such maths. My challenge to you. The very least , challenge the numbers I posted - can you do that??"

I never said or accused you of anything. Sir I only asked you if this was your work yes or no?

So what is it?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

From you '..First what does "the weight of evidence rest firmly in his favor."..'

That is the issue that I want you to clarify. The first part of the statement is '..Although we cannot prove that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel..'. The author of the book admitted that it cannot be proven that john mark was the author of the gospel according to mark. Then he goes on to say there is evidence firmly in favour of such. This is maximum silliness. He is contradicting himself.

Pages 3 - 6 - there is no concrete evidence , internal nor external , to support the assertion that john mark was the author of the said gospel. Like I said , you scour for non existent evidence to justify your faith. This is extremely poor.

I am challenging you. If you claim its not my maths , show me the website where I copied it. The very least , challenge the numbers that I posted.

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

You said...
I am challenging you. If you claim its not my maths , show me the website where I copied it.

I have made no such accusation, I am just asking you a yes or know question. Is this your own work or did you copy it from someone else? I didn't think it was that difficult of a question.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

If I answer yes , would you believe me? Don't ask what you have already made up your mind not to believe in the answer.

Its better for you to disprove what I stated. By all means , do that.

Yahya Snow said...

@Radical Moderate

You wrote: Like I said "It's not that you Muslims do not believe in God, it's that you will believe anyone or anything other then God"

Me: Uh? Are you for real? Who in the world wrote John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? NOT even the author of Mark (whoever he/she was) even wrote such.

So, in our very sensible claims of the authorship being anonymous you somehow level the allegation of "believing anything other than God".

Did God state John Mark wrote Mark? No.

did Jesus state this? No.

Did Mark state this? No.

The reason why you struggle in these discussions is due to what you are working with - Christianity and the Bible.

I understand you were taught this as a youngster but you need to begin to look into the work of Bart ehrman amongst others.

Your dismissal of Crossen is superficial too.

Is there any real evidence for John Mark writing Mark? No.

So in stating it is anonymous I am being fair!

I would not be surprised if you are amongst those who still believe John som of Zebedee wrote the gospel of john!

Stop with the fundamentalism of the 1900's and look into things on a more scholarlay level.

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

Think about this for a second. You made the claim on a previous post that "WE KNOW" in regards to Ishmael inhabitting Mecca, and the Arabs worshiping a single unitarian God named Allah.

When I asked for you or any one else to provide any proof of this, none was ever given. And thats becasue there is no evidence for the existance of a town called Mecca until around 4 AD. Yahtrib is mentioned, in 200 BC, but no Mecca.

But you believe this claim even though there is absolutely no EVIDENCE for the existence of Mecca prior to 4 AD.

Now let's contrast this with your claim that the Gosple of Mark is written Anonymously.

I provide you with evidence that Mark wrote Mark, evidence that if we were disusing something in Islam you would accept. Esubious quotes Papias, he quotes Ireneous, and Clement of Alexandria. If this was any other book of antiquity that would be enough.

An example, Homer's Illiad, no one doubts that Homer wrote it. But there is no manuscript that has his name on it.

Second, I provide you with internal evidence that this Mark is none other then John Mark. It was his mothers house that Jesus and the disciples were in, it is John Mark cousin of Barnabas, who goes off with Paul and Barnabas on a early Mission trip. It is John Mark who then goes off with Barnabas, then later reconciles with Paul, and then winds up with Peter in Rome. (Yes it says Babalyon, thats code for Rome)

But you reject this evidence and accept the belief that Ishmael settled in Mecca even though there is no evidence for Mecca or the worship of a Single Monotheistic God named Allah.

A Muslim on paltalk told me that Atheists and Muslims are very similar, he went on to say how they both use their brains. He was wrong on that but he was right on the fact that Atheists and Muslims are the same. You will believe anything but God.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You appealed to some guy on the internet, sorry don't know who he is, found a website of his "Fishing In Thai land" or something like that. Either way he appeals to John Dominick Crossen. No friend of Christ, a non believer, a heritic at best, apostate at worse.

John Dominick Crossen writes...
"has pointed out that verse 14:9: And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her" may well be a slyly ironic reference to the author herself."

So based on this Mark could be written by a woman.

Talk about speculation, well if you will believe this speculation then you should believe this as well.

Mark 14:51-52
"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." this "may well be a slyly ironic reference to the author" himself who is John Mark.

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

Man I didn't know this would be so difficult for you. Is this your own work or not, its no big deal. The math I posted I very clearly said was not my own when I posted it. I provided a link to the site where I copied it from. It's not that big of a deal, I am just wondering if it is yours or someone else's.

Yahya Snow said...

Radical Moderate, please stop!

Iraneus (ca. 180) is the FIRST recorded person to call the gospel by "Mark". 100 years after it was written!

Bart Ehrman has said ALL the Gospels are anonymous. None of the gospels claim to be written by the name they have been appedned with!

As for Papias, Ehrman tells us there are solid reasons for believeing Papias was NOT referencing your Mark!

Now that's Bart ehrman - an authority. Crossen is an authority too.

Who am I going to believe, the experts or you?

PLEASE stop showing yourself up.

Your apologetics is straight out of the 1900's. Get up to date, if you do you will realise the Bible has more problems than originally thought.


Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.

Yahya Snow said...

Radical Moderate, are you deliberately being obtuse?

You wrote: Think about this for a second. You made the claim on a previous post that "WE KNOW" in regards to Ishmael inhabitting Mecca, and the Arabs worshiping a single unitarian God named Allah.

When I asked for you or any one else to provide any proof of this, none was ever given. And thats becasue there is no evidence for the existance of a town called Mecca until around 4 AD. Yahtrib is mentioned, in 200 BC, but no Mecca.

But you believe this claim even though there is absolutely no EVIDENCE for the existence of Mecca prior to 4 AD.


Me: Uh? I have already explained this to you. The Arab oral traditions teach of Mecca and of Ishmael being their forefather.

This is BASIC info that you would expect the Arabs to know as it concerns their place of residence and their genealogy - we do not need external evidence (you were asking for archaeological) for such basics.

Perhaps you don't consider such as basic and easily discernable amongst those who should know (ie those whom it concerns) as your gospel accounts give TWO (yes TWO) differing lineages for Jesus.

Please don't use the blunders amongst the Gospel writers/scribes as a standard to judge others.

I bet you KNOW your heritage and which part of Europe your forefathers migrated from to America. Do you need archaeological evidence to discern such? No.

Please stop with the feeble argumentation - you do yourself no favours at all.

The reason why your arguments are so wanting in depth and consistency is because of what you are working with - Christianity and the Bible alongside Christian apologetics.

Iron sharpens iron as one man sharpens another.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You said "Please Stop"
Had enough I see throwing in the towel, waving the white flag, tapping out.

Don't worry I will stop pummeling your brain with logic. But the pain will continue.

You said...

"Iraneus (ca. 180) is the FIRST recorded person to call the gospel by "Mark". 100 years after it was written!"

Wrong Papias wrote his work long before Iraneus.

You then go on to site Bart Ehrman as well as Crossan as "EXPERTS" and ask the question "Who am I going to believe, the experts or you?"

I am asking you to look at the evidence and not dismiss it based on two people who hate God who is Christ more then you do. They dismiss the evidence based on their pre presuppositions. That there is either No God, or that there is a God but he doesn't care or speak to his people. You on the other hand are a Muslim, you believe the opposite of what they believe.

But since you are appealing to the "EXPERTS" and you believe them over the evidence. Then I guess you also believe that Christ was crucified.

Both Ehrman and Crosson believe that Christ was crucified. I believe it was Ehrman who said "It is a undeniable fact of history that Jesus Christ was crucified. We are as sure of this as anything from History" or words to that effect.

Crossen also believes that Christ was crucified, buried in a shallow grave, and his body dug up and eaten by wild dogs.

So you believe them right? Because they are as you say "THE EXPERTS"

But I will stop beating you on this topic, and let you come up for air.

So now lets move on to your other nonsense regarding that Mark did not belelieve Christ to be God.

I asked you this question in a previous comment. Can you please answer it now.

Then can you explain to me Mark 1:2-8

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow

You said...
"I bet you KNOW your heritage and which part of Europe your forefathers migrated from to America. Do you need archaeological evidence to discern such? No."

If lets say it was my family tradition that my great great great great grand father came over on the May Flower, but there was no record of my ancestor on the May Flower what would that tell you about my family tradition?

If lets say my family tradition said that my Ancestors came from a town in Germany, but that town either never existed or came into being 100's if not thousands of years after the time of my ancestor. What would that tell you about my family tradition?

So the answer to your question is not NO, the answer is yes. If i want to accuretly and honestly represent where my ancestors came from then yes I would need documentation or archeological evidence that the town were they came from existed during the time of my ancestors.

But accuracy and honesty is not something you Muslims seem to be interested in because all you have is your quran and that is good enough for you. LOL

Yahya Snow said...

Radical Moderate. STOP annoying me. PLEASE.

Papias was NOT talking about your mark. Ehrman states Iraneus is the FIRST one to call it by "Mark".

Who am I going to believe you or Ehrman?

And before I go. Mike Licona states "prove" is to establish something with reasonable and adequate certainty (for historians).

Arab oral tradition is enough to tell us (prove) Arabs came from Ishamael.

PLEASE stop showing yourself up.

I have Geza Vermes' 'The Resurrection' to get through. Let me get through it and move onto another topic rather than babysitting your unregulated comments.

PLEASE.

Thanks.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow Part 1

I let you up for air and this is how you respond,

You said...
"Papias was NOT talking about your mark. Ehrman states Iraneus is the FIRST one to call it by "Mark"."

Looks like I'm going to have to knock you back down again.

This is what Papias wrote.

""Mark became Peters interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order of things said or done by the Lord. For Mark had not heard the Lord nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter who used to give teachings as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements to them."

So how do you come to the conclusion that Papias is not talking about Mark?

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow Part 2


This next statement is classic, and really highlights the problem you have.

"Arab oral tradition is enough to tell us (prove) Arabs came from Ishamael."

I am not arguing that Arabs came from Ishmael, this has been proven to me by Abdul I believe.

The question is "PROVE THAT MECCA EXISTED IN THE TIME OF ISMAEL, PROVE IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FIRST BC?"

Now you used as a example of my family tradition on where my ancestors came from. As i stated if they were supposed to be on the May Flower and there is no evidence on that, then my Family Tradition is just wrong.

The same for your Arab Tradition that Mecca existed in the time of Ishmael. If all the evidence says that Mecca did not come into existence until the 4 century AD then your Arab traditions are just wrong. If all the evidence points to the fact that the Arabs from the 4th MIL BC on worshiped multiple Gods, none of them a single monotheistic God named Allah. Then that says that Arab Tradition is wrong.

Jesus said, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? "

In the same way I point out to you that you forsake the word of God for your traditions.

Yahya you bleieve this Arab tradition that has no supporting evidence, and all the evidence points to the opposite.

But you disregard the evidence that MARK WROTE MARK, even though there is no evidence that points to the contrary. Only the opinions of Atheist scholars or Heritcs that you would reject if they held the view on Islam.

Amazing what you Muslims have to do to deny the truth. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and false religions even stranger.

Radical Moderate said...

Yahya Snow said...

"I have Geza Vermes' 'The Resurrection' to get through. Let me get through it and move onto another topic rather than babysitting your unregulated comments."

Let me put that in my snowman taquiya translator

Yahya snow said...

"I have a book written by a Islamic scholar who attacks Christianity and selectively quotes from Gezza Vermes The Reserection, so please stop pointing out how illogical my position is and stop embarrassing me in front of my friends ... or I will tell my Mommy on you"

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Like I stated , if I answer yes - would you believe me?

If its not your work , the very least , you should check the accuracy of the numbers. You did not do that plus you were in full support of the numbers from that website. Now you appear 'not so sharp'.

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

If you say it is your work I will believe you unless I have evidence that says other wise.

So is it your work or not?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Yes , the numbers I posted is my work.

A cursory glance at the numbers you posted is enough to make one realise that the numbers you posted is not accurate.

Where do we go from here??

Anonymous said...

unlock iphone 4
how to unlock iphone 4

My computer was running just fine until I visited a normal, news website, one that I visited a 1000 times, and my computer became infected with one of those Fake "Anti-Spyware" viruses. I used both Super Anti-spyware and Malwarebyte's malware programs to finally get rid of that virus, and I rebooted my computer. The virus is gone, my computer is running fine again, except I can't use the Internet Explorer or Safari web browsers (I'm using Netscape now). Whenever I open a window in IE or Safari, I get an error message, "Cannot display web page." This happened once before, and I used the System Restore function to take my computer back to a time before a virus hit. But now, System Restore won't start, nor can I get my computer to work in Safe Mode. How do I get System Restore to start up again? I tried several different ways, but nothing is working. Help! (I have an HP Pavilion Desktop PC with Windows XP Media Edition). Thanx in advance!
unlock iphone 4 unlock iphone 4 how to unlock iphone 4
is this a virus attack. what should i do now? unlock iphone 4

unlock iphone 4 how to unlock iphone 4 [url=http://theunlockiphone4.com]unlock iphone 4 [/url] how to unlock iphone 4