旁觀者

｢有一個少年人赤身披著一塊麻布，跟隨耶穌，眾人就捉拿他。他卻丟了麻布，赤身逃走了。｣馬可14︰51
    耶穌偷呃拐騙、敲搾勒索，壞事做盡。公安來抓人，牠正屌緊個細路屎窟，來不及穿上褲子，細路便光著屁股逃跑，耶穌條靚馬可清楚地記錄下這齷齪一幕。
    屁眼教主不愛紅妝愛男妝，佢另一條靚約翰，記述了還有個｢楊蓮亭｣公然同耶穌｢依依挹挹｣的醜態︰
    「有一個門徒，是耶穌所愛的，側身挨近耶穌的懷裏……那門徒便就勢靠著耶穌的胸膛。」《約翰》13：23
    至於屁眼教主是愛屌｢楊蓮亭｣屎窟，還是愛｢楊蓮亭｣屌牠屎窟，約翰就没說白，大佬嘛，必須得給牠些面子。
    《查理周刊》︰｢嬰兒耶穌是‘罪惡之子’，是給人帶來苦難的撒旦，是虛僞的信仰治療者，是兒童殺手｣。
    為啥是｢兒童殺手｣﹖明白了吧。

旁觀者

《查理周刊》︰｢嬰兒耶穌是‘罪惡之子’，是給人帶來苦難的撒旦，是虛僞的信仰治療者，是兒童殺手｣。

kam

馬可福音應該不是馬可寫的
https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark/

beebeechan

馬可福音應該不是馬可寫的
kam 發表於 2026/3/1 14:14

    反基大師Bart ehrman 只係話最後嗰章最後的幾節可能不是出自馬爾谷。
去到你到就變咗成本福音都唔係馬爾谷寫？
真係想少理矣！

beebeechan

@kam



嗰條旁邊蛇智商唔高，人人睇到都知佢係9翕成性。
反而係你呢啲扮晒係無毒既毒蛇先叫人特別小心，唔好唔少理。

kam

CONCLUSION
Who then wrote the Gospel of Mark? Many lay readers assume it was John Mark – a close associate of Peter.
Historians take a different perspective when considering this question. They examine the Gospel as a historical source and analyze both internal and external evidence. The earliest Gospel was probably written anonymously by a Gentile Christian for a community outside of Palestine.
From an academic standpoint, the Gospels offer many remarkable insights into the origins of Christianity, as expertly shown in Bart’s course “The Unknown Gospels.”
You can find out more about his course by clicking the link below.

基督徒就話「反基大師Bart ehrman 只係話最後嗰章最後的幾節可能不是出自馬爾谷。」

beebeechan

CONCLUSION
Who then wrote the Gospel of Mark? Many lay readers assume it was John Mark – a close as ...
kam 發表於 2026/3/1 20:40

真係唔屌7里都要屌6里
   
你呢段野出自呢個網頁
https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark/

篇文講明唔BartEhrman既, 亦唔係代表佢意見

旁觀者

@kam
嗰條旁邊蛇智商唔高，人人睇到都知佢係9翕成性。
反而係你呢啲扮晒係無毒既毒蛇先叫人特別小心， ...
beebeechan 發表於 2026/3/1 18:27

智商唔高會日日教訓你班極毒教戇鳩﹖
耶穌喜歡細路，BB仔，趷高屎窟啦，牠｢復臨｣，生命之根一嘢嘢｢鐘入｣你屁眼，湧出活水，你就冚家蒙福（口架）。

kam

基督徒唔跟隨聖經教導講粗口又唔睇下自己喺#4講過乜

jimmychauck

回覆 9# kam

基督徒唔跟隨聖經教導講粗口又唔睇下自己喺#4講過乜
kam 發表於 2026/3/1 22:44

嗱，呢啲就完美示範，乜野叫一句都駁唔到啦。我就素來稱之為轉換話題，莫大嘅打不過就逃。我次次都係quote Paul Graham㗎啫。

https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

我完全唔會當BBC講過嘅野係一回事，或者基督徒，你有咩關於佢嘅問題問返佢唔洗問我，我只係對你嘅水平作出評論啫。我亦唔會對你#9提出嘅內容作出評論，因為基本上係冇內容，想評論都做唔到。

kam

垃圾回應
唔好以為長篇大論就有point先得

jimmychauck

回覆 11# kam

你連回應人地指你資料有誤，根本唔係bart咁講，你都做唔到，都叫醒吖，識得收埋啲垃圾唔好周圍揚。

有冇point，同長短真係冇關㗎，好似你#9#11咁，咁短，又make過咩point啫？

kam

自己爬去睇#4多一次啦
係嗰位基督徒話「反基大師Bart ehrman 只係話最後嗰章最後的幾節可能不是出自馬爾谷。
去到你到就變咗成本福音都唔係馬爾谷寫？
真係想少理矣！」

beebeechan

自己爬去睇#4多一次啦
係嗰位基督徒話「反基大師Bart ehrman 只係話最後嗰章最後的幾節可能不是出自馬爾谷 ...
kam 發表於 2026/3/6 22:33

咁你亂膠翕又真係抵少架喎
既然係我「少」你, 咁你就唔好「關佢叉事」囉

beebeechan

.

有冇point，同長短真係冇關㗎，好似你#9#11咁，咁短，又make過咩point啫？
jimmychauck 發表於 2026/3/6 21:41

唔係喎, #11 佢好有point喎.....好指出你長篇無論

jimmychauck

回覆 13# kam
你係咪閱讀理解有問題？
人地係講你#6果段根本唔係Bart寫，所以你憑咩引#6去講"Bart ehrman其實講過點點點"。

你可以話
1. 馬可福音應該不是馬可寫的
2. Marko 話馬可福音應該不是馬可寫的

但你根本冇理據話
Bart 話馬可福音應該不是馬可寫的

呢個好簡單咋吓話？你可唔可以從頭睇一次人地到底講緊乜？

jimmychauck

回覆 15# beebeechan
信口雌黃嘅人去贊同冇point嘅人，我有咩所謂？
你洗唔洗我remind你你有咩功課未做？定係我開個帖貼堂等你答？

beebeechan

自己爬去睇#4多一次啦
係嗰位基督徒話「反基大師Bart ehrman 只係話最後嗰章最後的幾節可能不是出自馬爾谷 ...
kam 發表於 2026/3/6 22:33

    點解你咁介意我在#4「少」你?
我在#7 話明「屌7你」時你又無出聲既??

kam

自己睇多次#3同#4先發惡啦
懷疑你有閱讀障礙

beebeechan

自己睇多次#3同#4先發惡啦
懷疑你有閱讀障礙
kam 發表於 2026/3/7 15:53

    少⋯
你個「自己」係想指邊L個先！
你個回覆緊貼我個帖。睇落又唔多似係回應我咁啵。
你係咪唔識用「引用」！