If God xists, then He is certainly not the Great God Zeus, who had many followers, people of faith.I think we can put the God of the ancient Isrealites in the same category as Zeus.On the shelf marked, 'Mythology'.
I do not see any historic or scientific evidence for the actual xistence of either of these gods.Both have had deluded followers and the God of Moses still does today.I am almost certain that the Creator of the universe is not the Judeo Christian Islamic Angry Jealous God of Moses.
But by saying "IF HE EXISTS IT IS CERTAINLY NOT...." is making an absolute statement about the God of the Israelites or Judeo Christian God and by making an absolute statement you are claiming the vantage point of one who knows all. God (if he exists) exists outside of nature so is as possible as he is impossible. You may not like the human followers of Islam of Christianity but given scientific and historic evidence I would say the strongest argument FOR a God is the God of the Bible.
Christianity, like Islam, cannot be considered as a 'Universal Truth'.Something that is True anywere in the universe.Such as 2+2=4.Anywere in the universe 2+2 will always =4.Christianity and Islam are faiths which are true only to those who believe.They have no basis in facts and are simply mis-guided beliefs.No truth in either of them at all.They are simply 'faiths'.There are so many other faiths that even Christians and Islamists reconize as having no truth in them,calling them 'Delusions'.
IF GOD EXISTS.He exists outside of nature because nature cannot create nature. Astrophysics point to a singular immensely powerful entity or "vehicle" creating the universe but by its nature it cannot exist in the universe just as an architect cannot be a wall in his house.
We cannot say whether or not god exists because he is outside of nature. You speak from an all knowing vantage point assuming you know a truth that cannot be known. It is entirely possible and impossible.
@THEFEDERL1ST If God xists it is certainly not the god of the ancient Isrealites, who is no more of a real god than the Great God Zeus, the God who brought order to Chaos.That much I 'm sure of.I speak from the vantage point of having a small knowledge of someof the various gods.I am not a scholar.I am not all knowing.I do not assume a truth that cannot be known.I refute that which can be refuted.That which is not Truth.
You admitted that you only have 'small" knowledge of "some" of the various gods, but make such an absolute statement that the biblical God certainly does not exist?.... Until you study and become more knowledgeable of the bible then you can make such a statement. Christianity has not been defeated because of it is truth. You cannot make something that is true become a lie and that's what you and a bunch of other skeptics try to do...so ignorantly. It's such a shame, too.
@2row777 I put the Biblical God in the same place as all other Gods.On the shelf marked 'Mythology', were it belongs.I make the same statement about them all.I do know more about the Biblical God than all the others.Christianity has been defeated bcos it has lost its power.In times past it was a powerful persecuting religeon but now it has disintegrated into so many sects,and is harmless.If we want peace on earth we need Islam to go the same way.All Divine revelation is nothing but Delusion!
We can all see what you try to do with the biblical God, but we also see it's out of ignorance. You think Christianity is about gaining power and persecuting others? That shows complete ignorance to biblical Christianity, which I'm not surprised since you admittedly have no knowledge of. You're confusing Biblical Christianity with the Roman Catholicism. If you cannot tell the difference then do yourself a favor and research before you make such ridiculous statements.
@2row777 We see Mad Islamists practicing the same religeous intolerence today that Christians did in times past,guided by scripture.Christian scripture is much the same as it ever was,so if Christianity became more powerful there is always the possiblity that history would repeat itself.Christianity is based mainly on Judaism,which is also an intolerent religeon.The other root of Christianity,Pagan Platonism,is the more rational side,which seeks to unite all mankind as brothers and sistersinLove
@GARYWERSLEY (I left two comments and you didn't respond to one of them)
Let me ask you something since you think you know what you're talking about. Have you heard of hermeneutics? Have you heard of taking passages out of context? Have you heard of the idea of "false teachers" who try to use the name of Jesus for their gain? The bible talks about this. If you were to research more than you wouldn't make those kind of statements. Do you research, man... You don't know what you're talking about.
Secondly, Mythology cannot be proven by history, science, or prophetic accuracy. There are no eye witness of Zues or any other "god" that has been created by man. Rather the one true God created the universe and chose to use the bible to reveal Himself. The accuracy in history, archaeology, science, and prophecies in the bible cannot be refuted. And if you dare try to refute the bible's credibility then expect me to respond. It's your choice.
@2row777 The story of Jesus cannot be proven by history.Fact. Prophecy is the language of fools.Fact.The belief in Zeus and other 'Gods' had many followers.They were people of 'faith',just as Jew,Islamists, Christians and Mormons are today.The God of Moses was never real,it was just as much a Delusion as all the beliefs.I seek to know the Creator but I do not find any evidence that the Jealous God of Moses is it. Probly most of the events in the Bible can be refuted and should be. I seek TRUTH!
You still ignored my comments (the same way you do with facts).
Fact #1: Jesus can be proven historically. Here are 9 secular (non-Christian) sources: Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus. You have been refuted, dude. Lets go on with your next false statement.
@2row777 The passage in Josephus is considerd by most scholars to be a forgery.Others that you mention tell us that the 'faith' of the cult of Jesus xisted at the time of their writing.They do not confirm the actual xistence of the man Jesus.Only of the faith.
"the passage in Josephus" - Have you read it yourself? Have you studied it yourself? Or did you go to some anti-biblical website and just take their word for it? I can tell you have not read any of the things I mentioned. Those secular sources have significant amount of evidence of the existence of Christ. Some of them actually write against Him and his followers, but nonetheless still prove his existence.
@2row777 I have read Josephus.Even I, not being a scholar, can see that it is an obvius insertion.It does not fit with the stlye ofother chapters.It is as if written by another hand.Josephus mentions many people in much detail, but Jesus gets only 1 chapter.Saying he did many wondrous things.In my nonscholarly opinion, I say it is an insertion.In the opinion of most scholars, it is an insertion, put there by a Christian forger.Some scholars even give a name to that Christian Forger.....
What have you read of Josephus and how much did you read? Which scholars are you referring to and which of them named the supposed "Christian forger?" Even taking out the supposed Christian "insertions", there still remains the fact that Josephus wrote of Jesus as a real person. The Arabic translations of his writing are a lot more plausible to both Christian/secular scholars. Whether he considered him to be miraculous or not, he still writes of a real man --Jesus Christ.
@2row777 Josephus goes into much detail about Jesus the brigand,giving his life story and xploits.Same with Jesus the High priest.A couple of other Jesus's are mentioned,in some detail.The Jesus of the bible has only a small chapter.Not much at all, considering at least the events of the Crucifiction.No mention of the sky darkening the curtain torn or the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem, not to mention the virgin birth or the star in the eastfeeding of the 5000 raising the dead curing
You're missing the point when a Christian refers to Josephus or any other secular source. The point is that Jesus is noticed in history. The writers/sources may not agree with what he said, but do acknowledge that He existed. Even if you take Josephus out of the picture, you still have other secular and Christian historians to deal with that have strong evidence of Jesus's existence.
@2row777 There were many Jesus' but non of them fit the description of the Jesus of the Bible,who was born of a virgin,during the reign of the Roman Emporer Augustus, and was crucifeid died and rose again.Most scholars regard the passage in Josephus as being being an insertion.Other later historians tell us that the cult of Jesus xisted,which is confirmation of the 'faith' but not the man.The 'faith'has been nticed thru history,but not the man.There is not even strong evidence for Paul...NJBC.
You keep saying most scholars, but haven't named any. If you say "most" then I expect you to give me a good amount of names. The idea of Jesus not existing is new. Many skeptics throughout history acknowledged his existence, but denied his divinity and such, but not his existence. So of course it won't fit the biblical description of Jesus by these people, but it still proves his existence. Read more commentaries besides two.
@2row777 Of the scholars who have studied the subject of the xistence of the Jesus of the Bible,some say he did xist but most say there is no evidence for his actual xistence.Some say that some1 like him 'may' have xisted at the supposed time of the Jesus of the Bible and that iswhat Christians grab hold of as evidence for the xistence their hero.But there is no evidence that the vague some1 who may have xisted at the supposed time ever performed any miracles or the resurrection ever happened.
So now, instead of "many" scholars, you're saying some. And now, finally, you're acknowledging that there are other scholars who disagree with you. There is evidence and I've already given it to you. Your reply: You supposed one thing, you guess on others, and you're not sure on many things. You only have used 1-2 commentaries, claim to research, and do not back up anything you say when asked to. You're the one who has no evidence, dude.
So now, instead of "many" scholars, you're saying some. And now, finally, you're acknowledging that there are other scholars who disagree with you. There is evidence and I've already given it to you. Your reply- You supposed one thing, you guess on others, and you're not sure on many things. You only have used 1-2 commentaries, claim to research, and do not back up anything you say when asked to. You're the one who has no evidence, dude.
And when you say things like "most" or "many" scholars without naming any of them, it makes your arguments look weak (which they are and have been). Back up what you say when asked to.
@2row777 What should have been noticed in history,if it had happened,is the 'Slaughter Of the Innocents',allegedly on the order of Herod,who,Josephus tells us,was a cruel and and vicious ruler.He relates many instances of Herods cruelty,but on Mat 2:16,Josephus is silent.So also are the other gospel writers.Such an event would surely be recorded by all of them,if it had happend?
@2row777 It is thought that the forger of the passage in Josephus refering to Jesus was Eusebius,1 of the early Church Fathers,also the man who wrote the history of Christianity up to his time,AD315.Other historians do not mention the events of the Crucifition,sun blotted out all the earth in darkness earthqakes.It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny,who,in laborious work recorded all the great phenomena of nature,but seem to have missed these amazing worldwide events..?
"the forger...was Eusebius" That's typical for a skeptic to say, but what evidence do you or they have that he forged it? Is this now an accusation game? Just guess who might have supposedly inserted something into Josephus's writings? Is this what your research is based off of?
@2row777 I know it does'nt look good, the 1st historian of Christianity probly being a forger,according to the scholars. If true then what does that say for everyhing else that this man has ever written? Eusebius also wrote the history of his 'great friend' Constantine the Great, who,other historians tells us,was a Tyrannical ruler,who claimed to have a vision, telling him to 'conquer in the sign of the cross'.This is were Christianity adopted the idea of burning books,later xtended to people...
@GARYWERSLEY Eusebius. Life of Constantine, lib 1v.c 63.
"Constantine alone,of all the Roman emperors;was beloved of God,and hath left us the idea of his most pious and religeous life as an inimitable xample for other men to follow,at a humble distance".
Other hstorians of that time tellus that Constantine murdered various members of his own family,aswell as others who may have upset him for various reasons,b4 his cnvrsion.It does appear that he may have adopted Christianity for Political reas
@2row777 Eusebius was writing AD315.He was the first person to mention the chapter in Josephus.Earlier writers had scoured Joshepus themselves in order to validate their faith,but could not find any mention of Jesus the Christ.It seems to have only been noticed by Eusebius.That chapter has been considered a forgery almost from the time that it was wrote by Eusebius.Not much guessing about it.All the evidence is there.Eusebius wrote a lot of stuff is considered highly by Christians.He was a frger
Fact 2) Fulfilled prophecies are just one of the few ways to prove that the biblical God true. There is not one false prophecy made by God in the bible, but rather many fulfilled prophecies. And they can be proven historically, too. Go to 100 prophecies org.
Fact 3) Most of the events in the bible have actually been proven to be true. There are thousands of archaeological digs that prove the bible's accuracy.
@2row777 Isaiah is probly speaking about the situation that the Jews are in at the time of his writing.The 'stumbling block' prhps refers to the Temple, which is in ruins.The suffering servant, prhps the remnant, and the few believers left. The virgin, who knows?Isaiah almost certainly was not speaking of Jesus conception.He would probly have been horrified at the Pagan idea of God sending down his son to teach mankind how to be civilised. Just as Islamists also find the concept too Paganish...
"probably" "perhaps" "who knows" - You see why i say that you sound confused and clueless? You just took wild guesses at those passages. YOU HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about, dude. STUDY! RESEARCH! If you need help, I already offered my assistance. Those specific prophecies and passages in the old testament explicitly refers to Jesus with out a doubt. Isaiah knew what he was writing when he wrote those prophecies.
@2row777 I think its good to speculate.Think about things.Have ideas.Hypothesies.I am not certain about much.I do my research,not on the internet but in a library.I feel that I should say probly perhaps who knows, because I may not be sure.Something to think about.I am not a scholar.I do not claim that what I say is fact but just my opinion, based on what I have understood from what I have read.I think that Isaiah is talking about the political stuaiton of the Jews at the time of his writing...
Well, as a Christian who takes studying seriously, I'm encouraging you to study the context given in Isaiah. And to do more research on the names I've given you in earlier comments. Both secular and Christian historians/scholars acknowledge the existence of Jesus and only a handful deny it. There are even writing of the early church fathers who were discipled by some of the apostles! The information is out there, you just have to sincerely be open to it.
@2row777 Who were the early Church Fathers and where were they educated?The information is out there!Perhaps they,and the compilers of the gospels lied,for the best of reasons,to promote their faith,of which they were probly quite sincere,but probly misguided in their beliefs.The claim to have met with the apostles is much like Pauls meeting with the risen Christ,unverifiable.Same as Joseph Smiths claim to have had a vision in which he met the patriarchs,Jesus and God.Unferifiable,not TRUTH.
If you truly want to learn about the church fathers, message me. So far I've given you answer, but all you have done is give your opinions and weak resource material. If what you're saying is true, then that means all the church fathers that existed in the first few centuries had to have the same lie, all be consistent with one another over the hundreds of years, get rid of any contradictory documents, and then many tortured/killed for what they thought was a lie? C'mon now...
@2row777 Paul,if he xisted,was probly a breakaway from an already xisting cult of Jesus.He is writing to already xisting churches,with deacons bishops teachers churches congregations scriptures,"whose faith was already known of all over the world".He rejects Judaism and promotes another religeon that "has been hidden from the ages",implying that his new faith is in fact,ancient wisdom.Just as there were many sects in Judaism so it was inCult of Jesus.many different versions of the Jesus story...
Prove that Paul did not exist before you start making statements that imply that. People like you don't seek truth, but only pick at things you do not want to believe in. I could tell from what you wrote about Paul that you probably have not read the New Testament. You have no idea why Paul wrote what he wrote. NO IDEA.
@2row777 The letters of Paul were wrote by persons unknown,according to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,1991ed.I cannot prove that he did not xist,but,again, the scholars tell us that Paul did not write some,prhps any,of the letters that bear his name.I have read the NT.We only have the Bible as evidence that Paul xisted,his own letters.He is mentioned in Acts but again,we do not know who wrote Acts.Thought to be Luke, but he tells us at Luke1:1,that he was not witness to events he relates.
"according to the NJBC" I have told you to look into more commentaries than this one. Obviously, the one you are using is joke. Most commentaries do not say that I can prove it to you. I already gave you commentaries to look into and the good thing is that most of them are free online. Your only use of NJBC is weak.
"Again, scholars tell" You keep saying scholars (plural) but do not have any support to this. You haven't mentioned any, but on the NJBC which is a flawed commentary.
@2row777 If I want to know anything about Christianity I go straight to the 'fountainhead', which is the Vatican.NJBC1991 is approved of by the Pope,and you can't get anymore Christian than that.Flypage tells me,"This commentary is named after St.Jerome,the foremost Scripture scholar among the Church Fathers,a pioneer in biblical criticism."Dedicated to Pope Pius X11,and Pope Paul V1,"who Defended and Solidified Progress in These Studies during and after the Second Vatican Council".(Their caps.)
"approved by the Pope" Do you honestly think that matters? That actually shows you that you SHOULD NOT trust it. Only a Roman Catholic would approve of such a horrid commentary. Even the idea of a pope is not found in the bible, but was originated in 500AD. That's not Christianity at all. Use different commentaries, you'll see a huge difference and you'll realize that Christianity is not all about "power" like you said in the beginning.
"I think we both agree" No, because your idea of Christianity is not correct. Roman Catholicism is not Christianity! Do research on the Protestant Reformation. Read about those who tried to reform the catholic church before Martin Luther, but were killed.
@2row777 Perhaps those who were killed by earlier Christians was because of Exodus 34:10-17.The followers of Jesus demonstrate the Truth about the religeous intolerence inherent in all the faiths that come from the God of the ancient Isrealites. The God of Moses.
@2row777 I do not hate the Bible or bible believers,neither do I hate the Koran or those who believe in it.I do seek to know Truth about the Creator as far as can be known.I do not believe there is truth in either of these books.That is not hate.You said that earlier Christians killed others who had different ideas than they about the bible.I try to find why that happened and I find it is written in scripture that nonbelief is evil. Koran says the same things.Something todo with Exodus 34:10-17?
I've already told you that I'm more than willing to discuss these things with you, but not on here. We can talk through private messages or email. It's your choice.
@2row777 Looks like you're not willing to discuss these things with me, even in private.You do seem to be ignoring me.I have PM'd some points, as requested,and the silence is deafening.As well as being difficult to interpret.
But then that seems to be the usual way with those who claim to 'know' Truth.
@GARYWERSLEY I'm not willing to discuss these things with you, although I sent you a message saying that I will get back to you yesterday? Although I told you twice that I'm extremely busy and won't be able to respond to all your points as quick as you'd like? Gary, I have a life, too. I have projects to complete, homework, and spend time with family. My schedule is jammed! I don't live my life on Youtube, sorry. Anyway, I already replied.
Also, no, I haven't ignored you. I sent you messages out courtesy to let you know I'll respond within a certain time period (most 1-2 days). "But then that seems to be the usual way with those who claim to 'know' Truth." Is this how you win arguments? Publicly make your opponent seem like a coward although telling you that I'll get back to you asap? So if it's not on your timing, in your mind you've won? C'mon now...smh. Just respond to my message.
@2row777 I did not actually wish to make you seem like a coward, altho it did take you a while to get back to me. I have not 'won' any arguements. Just put my unscholarly opinions. Of which I am still pretty much certain, that no such person as the Jesus of the Bible ,or his apostles, ever actually xisted.He never lived,never died, never resurrected.Jesus was most probly just a story, just like all the other sons of other gods,whose followers had just as much faith as any1 who believed in Jesus
@2row777 I have recieved your PM, and thanks for such an interesting and comprehensive reply. I will respond as soon as I can. I am 1 of those poor unfortunates that has 2 work for a living so I don't spend my life on Youtube either.
"approved by the Pope..." Do you honestly think that matters? That actually shows you that you SHOULD NOT trust it. Only a Roman Catholic would approve of such a horrid commentary. Even the idea of a pope is not found in the bible, but was originated in 500AD. That's not Christianity at all. Use different commentaries, you'll see a huge difference and you'll realize that Christianity is not all about "power" like you said in the beginning.
Luke wrote Acts and it does not matter if he was not an actual witness to the things sing in the gospel of Luke. If you were to only READ Luke 1:1-4, you'd realize that Luke was a researcher. What he wrote was based of research from eye witnesses. This is not a problem. Everything he wrote was accurate. If you read Acts 1, you realize that Luke is carrying off from what he did in the gospel of Luke. His writing style and pretty much everything is the same. If you read you'll notice.
@2row777 Luke tells us that he was not a witness to events he relates.He tells us he recieved the info from unnamed others.He does not tell us who they were.He claims that someone had at some point witnessed the stories he relates.At the time of writing,which is uncertain,the faith already xisted and was believed in by many,over a wide distance,or some version of it was.With churches bishops& scriptures.He researched an earlier written script,which we do not have now.He never talked to witnesses
@2row777 The earlier written script that Luke researches and makes a copy of for his friend Theophilos,says that there were witnesses.He does not tell us who these witnesses were or when the script that he copies from was 1st wrote.He tells us that 'these things are already believed in among us'.He is not telling Theophilos any thing new.He re-afirms that which is already known by Theophilos and many others, b4 the time of his,Lukes, writing.This comes from King James Study Bible,Scofield ed.
I'm not denying that which Luke wrote was believed already, but I'm denying your skeptical speculations that are not fully be backed up, at all. It's clear that Luke wrote that gospel and the book of Acts. He did the research for Theophilos. That's obvious and you don't need a commentary to find that out. It's so clear.
Something you should know is that he authorship of Luke was never doubted until the 19th century!
ESV Study Bible: The "we" sections of Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16) assume the the author was a companion of Paul and participated in the events described in those sections..Paul's companions..(Col. 4;14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philem 21)...It is known that the author was from the second generation of the early chuch, was not an "eyewitness" of Jesus' ministry (Luke 2:1), and was a
@2row777 Luke address's his Gospel to "Most Excellent Theophilus", Most Excellent,which is a title.The faith that is already known of and believed in by many is patronaged by important titled people.Theophilus probly wanted his own copy of an already xisting scripture. Luke tells us that Theophilus has already been instructed in some prexisting scripture. That scripture being the foundation of his faith. B4 Luke writes his version of events. Which is what we have today in our version of the NT
"Theophilos probly wanted his own copy..." See, you keep guessing. That's your problem. Luke says, "...to write an orderly account for you..." He does not say "to copy manuscripts for you" or anything like that. He says that he is going to "write an orderly account" for him so " that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Theophilos wanted certainty of the things not, not a copy of them. No "prexisting scripture" involved at all.
...gentile (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6, says Luke was "by race a Antiochian and a physician by profession"; cf. Col 4:14). All of this confirms the tradition that Luke was the author of the third Gospel. (This was from the ESV Study Bible).
The writing styles are similar and by just reading through both of the books, you'd realize it's the same author, Luke.
@2row777 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History is questionable.He is thought of as being a forger,which brings into question everything he wrote.Luke is described as a physician,which is another way of saying Theraputae.
The Theraputae had a base at ancient Alexandria,from were wandering missionaries were sent out, to all the then known world,healing the sick and preaching their brand of religeon,which was very similar to what Christianity later bcame.Perhaps Pauls journeys were as 1 of them...Acts?
"Eusebuis...thought of as being a forger" and this is in your opinion and those who hate the bible/Christianity. There is not one piece of strong evidence hat he added anything to Josephus's writings. There are only speculations, accusations, and mere opinions.
Paul's journey is clearly seen in Acts and his epistles. Again, your speculations are only speculated opinions, not facts nor hard evidence.
Like I said before, if you sincerely want to know about these things then message me. I'll be more than happy to show you what I know about all of this. This could add to your quest to find "truth."
@2row777 Most scholars think that Matt and Mark are also copies, prhps copied of each other or copied off some other pre-xisting scripture. It does appear that all 3,Matt Mark Luke, all copied from the same pre-xisting document. Original author, time, place of writing unknown.
Concerning Matt, Mark, and Luke; No, again. Each account focuses on different things. The conclusion that they are copied from each other is weak thinking. All you have to do is read through them and compare each one and you'll realize that they weren't copied.
No. The conclusion that those three gospels were copied from each other is based off of weak thinking. All you have to do is compare the three gospel accounts and you'll clearly see that they were not copied off each other.
Okay man. We've gone back and forth on here for too long. If you want to have a proper debate about these things, message me. Don't bother replying on here. Message me, instead. I'll give you my email and we can have topical debates/discussions. Normally, I won't waste my time, but this helps me stay sharpened on issues like these. So please, message me instead. Don't reply to me on here.
@2row777 Again,scholars tell us that at least 3 different people wrote the book of Isaiah, names unknown. Maybe not even Isaiah.Your guess is probly as good as mine about who did actually write it and what they were actually writing about.
Well, if you were to only read rather than guess and takes these supposed "scholars's" guesses, you would find out that Isaiah was written by Isaiah when you read chapter 6. So far, you've just proved ignorance. I'm telling you...if you just use more than one commentary and your opinions, you'd find out a lot of truth.
@2row777 The 'prophecies of Isaiah'.Scholars tell us that their were at least 3 writers in Isaiah,possible more,written over a long period of time.Thought to have been written by disciples of Isaiah,who continued to think and preach in the way of Isaiah after his death.We do not know who these other writers were.Or how many of them contributed to what is now our OT.We do know that OT as we know it was1st translated into Greek at Alexandria,about 200 BC.Prhps this is were those writers came from?
Lastly, if you were to sincerely seek truth then you would not be so ignorant to facts and so arrogant when people try to give them to you. You don't seek truth. You sound confused and clueless. But...if you honestly want to know if the bible is true, I'm here to help. But that's only if you truly want to know. If not then I'll respect your decision. But just know that you ignoring a lot of evidence facts that point to the bible.
@2row777 Lastly,I do seek Truth,I do seek to know the Creator.I am not a scholar or xpert on the bible,but have read it a few times,as well as bible commentaries.I have come to the conclusion that there is not much Truth in the bible.Starting with Adam and Eve,thru to Sinai,the slaughter of the inhabitants of Caanan,whose main offence seems to have been that they worshipped a different God than those who invaded them.Eligah,another religeously intolerent prophet. etc Where isthe Love in all this
"I have read it a few times" - If you have honestly read the bible a few times then you would know a lot more than you do. Those wild guesses you took on Isaiah was obvious that you do not know the bible. I'd be surprised if you read half of it. And which commentaries have you read? Being as ignorant as you are, you won't find the Truth. You must humble yourself first and be willing to learn and accept things that you may not like.
@2row777 The New Jerome Biblical Commentary1991.New Bible Commentary3rded.Various eds of the bible.Some other books.I am not a scholar but I am searching for Truth.I have done and am still, "doing my research".Without the googles of "Faith".Just as I read Greek Mythology ...The NJBC tells me that Paul did not write all of the letters ascribed to him.Scholars tell us that persons unknown had wrote some of them.Perhaps even all of them.Acts is also thought to have an unknown author....NJBC....
Two commentaries? Is that it? Look, I understand you're not a scholar, but resources are still available. There are well-known commentaries, such as: Matthew Henry's, John Calvin's, John MacArthur's, John Gill's exposition, and one of my personal favorite is the ESV study bible. There are more resources to the bible, too. You just have to look. Most commentaries will disagree with NJBC on the particular issue, that's for sure.
"I have read it a few times" - If you have honestly read the bible a few times then you would know a lot more than you do. Those wild guesses you took on Isaiah made it obvious that you do not know the bible. I'd be surprised if you read half of it. And which commentaries have you read? Being as ignorant as you are, you won't find the Truth. You must humble yourself first and be willing to learn and accept things that you may not like.
If one reads the bible atheism becomes the most logical position. The gratuitous violence and immorality clearly points to human authors rather than divine inspiration. Religious belief was born of primitive ignorance much of which has now been dispelled. The world would be a safer place were there no religion in it.
Christianity is a part of the evolution of mans idea about god.It is no more of a True religeon than any other.Christianity evolves. changes. its beliefs now are not the same as in former times.B4 it was an article of 'faith' to believe in the Virgin Mary.1 was not a true Christian without all sorts of 'ideas' now rejected.Islam, on the otherhand, strives not to evolve, which is disintegration into various sects.As Christianity has done. Thereby losing its power.becomes irellevent.Forgotten.Gone
to say that Christians never question their faith is to be ignorant. they struggle with doubt all the time. in fact, everyone has faith and doubts...its a fact of life. "Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence." taken from wiki. i'm going to trust the scholars who have actually done research on this issue.
@lightbrownpoop Christians should question the history of their faith.How did such things as the Spanish Inquistition happen? Burning of heretics and witches, Jews and Muslims?Just what does the bible say about non-belief? How can a God of Love create such an idea as Eternal Torment for those who don't believe?Somehow, that idea was probly a contributing factor in the choice of method of xecution.Slowly burning to death.As for the xistence of Jesus.No real evidence.Only faith required.Delusion..
There is no Love in Jealousy, there is only TYRANNY! Belief in the Jealous God (Exodus 34:14) whose name is JEALOUS, produces Fanatically Intolerent followers.
Proverbs14:30.'Jealousy is like a Cancer'. Proverbs 27:4.'Anger is cruel and destructive,but it is nothing compared to Jealousy'.
The history of Christianity is relevant for todays culture so that we do not make the same mistakes as our forefathers.Look at all the Divinely Inspired torture and bloodshed that Christianity brought along with it and ask yourself the question,'What does the Bible say should be done with the nonbeliever'?
Christianity worships the same God of Blood as the Islamists.Their histories are both stained with the blood of nonbelievers.Hatred of nonbelief is inherent in both these faiths.
The belief in the God of the bible tends to lead some people to fanatisism. We can see this by looking at the history of Christianity and also by the behaviour of Islamic fundamentalists today.
This probaly happens because the God of the bible is a jealous God. Exodus 20.5 .
@GARYWERSLEY Shall we retrace the steps of atheism? Communism was based on atheism. And they killed everything within their reach: intellectuals, members of the army, the clergy. They killed people just for owing a Bible. Killing someone for owing a book? If someone kills you for owing Richard Fawkins's book, would that be alright? Atheism was a great plague. Shall we look at the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and North Korea?
@CarlosMarti123 Much violence and bloodshed has happened bcos of Hitler Communism Cambodia etc.
They were all failures bcos they tried to force their will onto others.Much violence and bloodshed has also followed all the faiths that have come out of the worship of the Jealous God of the Bible. See Exodus 34:10-17. And still continues today in the form of Islamic fundamentalism.We should look at history and not make the same mistakes again.
@GARYWERSLEY "Religeon is the Problem. Not the Solution."
Really? Hmm... the compilation of the history of human warfare (Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod) documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what you ignorantly considered to be "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars.
@CarlosMarti123 I did not use the word 'most'. But if only 1 war was religeously inspired it would be 1 war 2 many.The history of Christianity is soaked in blood.The Bible and Koran produce Fanatical followers who seem to have no problem killing off those who have adifferent opinion than them.History tells us that. It is FACT.Religeous people have tried to Impose their 'faith', just as some politicians and dictators have tried to impose their ideaolgy.With disasterous results for the human race.
@CarlosMarti123 Lots of things can produce fanaticism that is true. But if we know that some things have that effect on some people then we should not encourage it.If there is something that has had an influence on 123 different wars,as you say, we should be very careful about it. All the bloodshed and violence that has happened as a result of the Bible,or the Koran, happened bcos of the Holy Scriptures that Christians and Muslims believe in.
@CarlosMarti123 Christianity has a similar history as Islam does. It believes in the same Jealous God as the Islamists.Deuteronomy is much the same as Sharia.Both these deluded faiths believe that they alone are the way to eternal salvation.This belief unfortunately produces religeous fanticism.Christianity has lost its power.In the past when it was 1 it was apersecuting religeon,just as Islam tries to be today.
Belief in the god of the ancient Isrealites has been a curse on the human race.
It is fortunate for civilisation today that Christianity has disintegrated into so many different churches. When it was one church, (RC), it was a religeously intolerent church. Christianity has lost its power now and that is why most of them are peacefulpeople. Christianity needs to split some more, as does Islam. A divided religeous belief is a weak religeon. Weak religeons make for a peaceful world.
Before acepting 'faith' check out the history of the religeon. Right to the beginning.
@GARYWERSLEY "Before acepting 'faith' check out the history of the religeon. Right to the beginning." I 100% agree with this. I don't understand WHY this is so hard to do this!! I would donate my kidneys to understand why is so hard to see if your faith is legitimate by reading history books. I don't understand why people still live in a delusion when the answer can be found even on wikipedia. And they say atheists hate and discriminate them ...
There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by ignorant Bronze Age goat herders who knew little the real world in which they lived in. An example, and a rather poor one at that, of man's first attempt at philosophy, morality and law. Some of the stories in the bible are absolutely deplorable. I'll pass.
@FaganRoberts Bronze Age goat herders wouldn't be able to pull something like this off without divine help. no other text throughout history has caused such devotion, while bringing hostility to others. whether you believe it's the actual word of God or not, it has and always will be the most intriguing piece of literature that will ever be composed.
@lightbrownpoop Yes, I guess talking snakes, virgin births, parting mighty seas, genocidal war stories, burning bushes, mortal zombies, is something that only only be inspired through divine intervention. Yeah, it would really take a god to inspire men to write such crap. There's nothing intrigueing about this unless you have the prefrontal lobes of a primate. (People tend not to believe in facts, they're boring, but tell them a whopper lie and they're hooked for life) Don't be a sucker.
@FaganRoberts Christianity is too queer to have been thought up by humans. salvation is a free gift through grace, no good works will do so no one can boast? looking at a woman with lust is sin? believing that Jesus Christ was resurrected and died for our sins grants us eternal life? love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you? it's to embarassing to have been made up. men (and you and i both know how us men think and act) wouldn't have included these outrageous things.
@lightbrownpoop Man's imagination is boundless, especially when one group is attempting to control others through superstition. Naaah, this salvation malarkey is as old as the hills. In fact, Christianty adopted this nonsense from previous religions, so there's nothing really new here. Fortunately, you have the burden of proof to show these texts are the words of a god. Insofar, you've failed. It reads like man-made dribble. People can write such things, you know? Look at science fiction!
@FaganRoberts there were dozens of other messianic pretenders whoe lives and careers ended the same way Jesus' did. why would the disciples of Jesus have come to the conclusion that that his crucifixion had not been a defeat but a triumph, unless they had seen him risen from the dead? after the death of Jesus the entire Christian community suddenly adopted a set of beliefs that were brand-new and until that point had been unthinkable.
@lightbrownpoop No one saw anyone rise from the dead. Dead people don't rise alive again from the dead. Any account of the details of Jesus's alleged death were written generations after the act. The christian faith is based upon these stories. It's just a blood cult.
@FaganRoberts i know this is pretty hard to grasp or believe in our scientific enlightment age, that a resurrection actually took place but there has been no alternate theory that has held any water to why the Christian church got started in the first place.
@lightbrownpoopJesus was never real.There was no Ressuection. Christianity probly started in ancient Alexandria.It probly took off bcos of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.Many Jews died in that war and many others where probly disilusioned with the old religeon,probly looked for some sort of sign from god, saw the Pagan faith of Christianity, decided that was it.
Jews in those days were very superstichious.Every single thing that happened, good or bad, was a sign from God. Delusion.
@GARYWERSLEY wiki Jesus Christ.....thats alot of information for a person who never even existed...it seems that you're the one who is deluded. why would wikipedia include a birth/death date, cause of death, nationality, ethnicity, home town, religion etc. of a person who wasn't even real? think about these things for a bit. and go to wikipedia...very few scholars question his existence. join the rational side...it doesn't mean you have to believe he was god. it'll just make you less ignorant.
@lightbrownpoop Someone once said 'ingnorance is bliss'.For Jesus to be real for me everything that the bible says about him has to be true.Fact.Such as Divine birth,does many wonderous things,cruel death, resurrection,bodily ascent to heaven etc.Jesus was never anymore real than Adam and Eve,or the 6 days of Creation.All these things have to b taken on faith, just as Islamists and Mormons all have faith that their heroes were visted by angels sent by the God of the ancient Isrealites. DELUSION!
Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion......
@lightbrownpoop Jesus of Nazereth,the Saviour of the human race,never did any of those things.He was never real.His followers,people of faith,did some of those things.The religeon of Christianity did some of those things. But you forgot to mention some of the other things that have been done in the name of the Saviour, by some of those people of faith.Such as the Spanish Inquisition, religeous intolerence ,burning alive heretics and witches and various other such historical events thru history..
@GARYWERSLEY if you want to hear about the intellectual side for Christianity, read some Timothy Keller, William Lane Craig, CS Lewis or NT Wright. i hate these type of youtube arguments, they go nowhere. please oh please don't become of victom of phsycological arrogance which is the belief that everything contrary to what you believe must be wrong. the new atheists are bad for it. also, faith is holding on to what your reason once accepted as true despite your changing moods.
@GARYWERSLEY ......and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. --Philip Schaff
@GARYWERSLEY The issue in your statements is the repeated use of "probably." This indicates an acceptance of non-empirical belief, which thus would entail having a measure of faith in something you cannot prove. While on the other hand there are historically neutral accounts recorded of Jesus' existence. There are even Jewish records (outside of the Bible) supporting the existence of Jesus. Check out Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian and Flavius Josephus.
@MrAudacious21 Tacitus mentions the 'faith' of Christianity that certainly did xist at the time he was writing.The fact that the faith xisted does not mean that Jesus ever did.The small mention of Jesus in Josephus is thought by most scholars to be a later insertion.Forgery.The bible itself suggests to me that Jesus was never real.'Faith' was all that was ever required.Paul was writing his letters along time b4 any of the gospels were wrote.Qoutes other scriptures which we do not have today
@MrAudacious21 'Probably' is probly the best way to go.Use probabilities.I am not a scholar.I asess what I read and use my rational mind as much as pos.In all probability there was never any such real persons as Adam Eve , even Moses.There is no evidence for their ever having xisted.Even less evidence for the xistence of the God of the ancient Isrealites.Still being worshipped by so many deluded people.In so many different Faiths.Delusions.Tacitus wrote of the faith. Not of the real man.Probly.
@GARYWERSLEY Sir, I appreciate your response. Please provide me with the evidence that they did not exist. If you are unable to do so then your premise is just as much of a leap of faith as mine. How then would your conclusion be rational? Also, Concerning Josephus, that portion of the work is widely contested. At the very least, scholars only believe it be partially altered in phrases that would correspond with Christian formulae by a the copyist. Nothing to do with Christ's existence.
@MrAudacious21 I cannot prove Adam+Eve or Moses did not xist.I do not think they ever did.But then no-one can prove that they did,or even that Jesus did.It does not take faith not to believe in something,faith is required to believe in something that has no evidence for that belief.Such as the belief in angels and demons,or the resurrection.Or even the crucifixtion.No evidence, faith is required.When we look at other faiths we can say that they, of that other faith, are deluded.Misguided.Lost.
@MrAudacious21 I cannot prove that Zeus, the god who brought order to Chaos,never xisted,or his son Apollo,who was thought to have come to earth to teach mankind how to be civilised.I cannot prove their xistence or non-xistence,but millions of people had 'faith' that Zeus was the power behind all xistence and that his son Apollo had walked the earth, as a young man, teaching, healing,even probly raising the dead.But people of 'faith' did believe in these probly nonxistence Gods.Faith = Delusion.
@lightbrownpoop The notion of human resurrection after death is not a theory. In fact, it's not even a hypothesis. It's what you call mythology. It's the examination of mythology that you wish to avoid embarrassment here. Which is quite understandable if I wanted to assert that, for example, Zeus was real. I would be laughed off YT. lol
@FaganRoberts nothing in history can be proven the way we can prove something in a labratory. every effort to account for the birth of the church apart from Jesus' resurrection flies in the face of what we know about first-century history and culture. if you don't short-circuit the process with the philosophical bias against the possibility of miracle, the resurrection of Jesus has the most evidence for it.
@FaganRoberts wanna hear something shocking? if you deny Jesus' existence just because there's no contemperory historical evidence for him, you must also deny Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Nero, and various other roman empires. are you willing to take such a leap?
@lightbrownpoop It's takes a remarkable leap of faith to believe mythologies are in fact true. Religion tenets are just articles of faith. People shouldn't take them seriously. There's no reason to think them true, unless mommy and daddy indoctrinated you as a child first to make you think them true. Some people cannot shake off things parents or churchs told them as a child. But the geographic Roman Empire is a historical fact.
@FaganRoberts the people were real, the places were real, the events were real. if they are all mythology then why have we discovered tons of artifacts mentioned in the Bible? /wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
@lightbrownpoop Just because we find human artifacts dating to the time the texts were written still in no way validates the miracle claims nor does it prove a god exists - sorry. Here again: Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. Mt. Ararat exists. Therefore Noah's biblical account of the flood must be true. The figures are myths and the events are fabricated. It just takes faith to think they're true.
@lightbrownpoop There is no evidence for the actual xistence of Jesus.There is even less evidence for the ressurection.There is not even evidence for the xistence of Jesus in the Bible itself.
@GARYWERSLEY If thats what u believe then I recommend u read up on the history of Christ, there is more evidence supporting the history of Christ than any other historical figure. If you deny that christ even existed then please deny the existence of aristotle, alexander the great and other such figures. Please read Richard Baukhams, Jesus and the eye witnesses and I think that may clear up some of you concerns.
@learningcurveify There is no evidence for the xistence of the Jesus of the Bible, who was born of a virgin, did many wonderous things, was cruelly killed and rose again 3 days later.There is plenty of evidence for the 'faith' of Christianity.That certainly xisted, people did write about it.But that evidence for the xistence of the faith is not evidence for the xistence of Jesus.Anymore than saying that the 'faith' of the Hindu Chrishna xisted, therefore so did the real Son of God Chrishna.
@learningcurveify There is plenty of historical evidence of the faith of Christianity,but no evidence for the xistence of its supposed founder.Joshephus is an insertion.The Virgin Birth,performing miracles,cruel death, ressurection, never really happend. No evidence for any of it.No evidence even for the xistence of the god of the ancient Isrealites, who Christians claimed to be the Almighty,Father of their Hero,Jesus.No evidence for the Angel Gabriel or even Satan Himself. All just stories.
@GARYWERSLEY My friend I apologise for taking so long to reply. To say that there is no evidence for Christs existence is to deny the existence of any other ancient figure as they all are determined using standard historical methods so Im not sure why you believe that. please read the wiki page on the historicity of Jesus which I think handles the subject fairly, As stated before please read richard baukhams, Jesus and the eye witnesses
@learningcurveify There is no evidence for the xistence of Jesus.Other historical figures may or may not have lived.What actually does matter is whether Jesus xisted or not.It does matter if he was born of a virgin, in the same manner as other sons of gods, did many wondrous things, in the same manner as othersons of gods, and died a cruel death, as other sons of other gods did, to be resurreected, and ascend to heaveny paradise, back with his Almighty Father,to be worshipped with him,as him.One
@GARYWERSLEY There is NO EVIDENCE, for the existence of GARYWERSLEY.
All we have are writings from someone that CLAIM to be him.
There is no other writings, from unbiased sources, that corroborate that such a person EVER existed.
It is my conclusion, that the so-called, "GARYWERSLEY" is nothing more than propaganda, by persons unknown for the sole purpose of trying to convince people that he is "real", so that people will listen to "his writings", thereby controlling them.
@JoeShmuck35 it would not be difficult to find evidence of the xistence of Gary Wersley.Unlike Jesus, he is a real person. You will not be condemned to an eternity in Hellfire for not believing in his writing.He does not claim Divine authority for his ideas, just historical facts, as far as he can work out.
Also,Gary Wersley has no interest in propaganda,is not interested in followers,or trying to control anyone.
He is very concerned about mad religeous people trying to control him and others.
@GARYWERSLEY "it would not be difficult to find evidence of the xistence of Gary Wersley."
I see NO evidence of such a person, historically or otherwise. I see "writings" that "claim" to be from him, but as we all know, very little on the internet can be trusted, since anyone can "claim" they are anyone.
"Unlike Jesus, he is a real person."
His person-hood, has yet to be established. The writings seen, can be the rantings of one of his followers, or even a net bot.
@GARYWERSLEY "You will not be condemned to an eternity in Hellfire for not believing in his writing."
The writer claiming to be Gary Wersley, has repeatedly demonstrated a comprehension problem, concerning biblical text. Constantly repeating errors, that are clearly refuted by evidence. This leads me to believe, "Gary Wersley" is actually a net bot, only able to regurgitate, programming data points and not actually "reason" through a debate topic.
@GARYWERSLEY "He does not claim Divine authority for his ideas, just historical facts, as far as he can work out." He DOES claim to be Divine, in that he claims to have a BETTER knowledge of history, than professional historians. Almost as if he wants us to believe "He" was there. He is either claiming divinity, or psychic prowess.
This is what the "Gary Wersley" programmer wants people to believe about "him".
@GARYWERSLEY "Also,Gary Wersley has no interest in propaganda,is not interested in followers,or trying to control anyone." This statement IS propaganda. If the GW program, is not seeking followers (Converts), why would the GW program spend SO MUCH time writing comments, on videos he (it) disagrees with?! This demonstrates a CLEAR agenda, to manipulate sophomoric people. It's is the epitome, of "control" through propaganda.
@GARYWERSLEY "He is very concerned about mad religeous people trying to control him and others."
The Gary Wersley program, has demonstrated 0 evidence of anyone, religious or otherwise, trying to control "him". This last statement goes right along with the previous one....it is part of the propaganda subroutine, that the GW program inserts in all it's comments. The idea behind it is to instill fear, in the sophomoric reader, so they will trust GW, over the warning of the boogeyman, GW created.
@JoeShmuck35 There is no evidence for the xistence of the Angel Gabriel,who came to the Virgin Mary and told her that she was to be pregnant,with the new messiah.The Annunciation.Luke 1:26.The very same Angel Gabriel who visited Mohamed,and told him God had chosen him to be the new prophet,to start a new religeon,bcos all the others where corrupt.There is no evidence for the xistence of the Angel Moroni,who told the prophet JosephSmith the same thing.It is my conclusion that Angels do not xist.
@GARYWERSLEY And again, I state, that there is as much (actually considerably less) evidence, that a person by the name of Gary Wersley, EVER existed. Of course, I'm using the same standards of measure, for "authenticity" that the Gary Wersley WebBot program uses. Under this WebBot's analysis subroutines, history didn't happen, because he (it) didn't witness it. Miles of historic documentation are dismissed, Cuz..he don't believe it! "Belief" in history, constitutes "faith",so, it didn't happen.
The unfortunate Fact is that religeon is the problem, not the solution.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@bomichaelsdotcom
...um he's not a priest. Just thought I'd let you know.
2row777 4 months ago
If God xists, then He is certainly not the Great God Zeus, who had many followers, people of faith.I think we can put the God of the ancient Isrealites in the same category as Zeus.On the shelf marked, 'Mythology'.
I do not see any historic or scientific evidence for the actual xistence of either of these gods.Both have had deluded followers and the God of Moses still does today.I am almost certain that the Creator of the universe is not the Judeo Christian Islamic Angry Jealous God of Moses.
GARYWERSLEY 5 months ago
But by saying "IF HE EXISTS IT IS CERTAINLY NOT...." is making an absolute statement about the God of the Israelites or Judeo Christian God and by making an absolute statement you are claiming the vantage point of one who knows all. God (if he exists) exists outside of nature so is as possible as he is impossible. You may not like the human followers of Islam of Christianity but given scientific and historic evidence I would say the strongest argument FOR a God is the God of the Bible.
THEFEDERL1ST 5 months ago
Christianity, like Islam, cannot be considered as a 'Universal Truth'.Something that is True anywere in the universe.Such as 2+2=4.Anywere in the universe 2+2 will always =4.Christianity and Islam are faiths which are true only to those who believe.They have no basis in facts and are simply mis-guided beliefs.No truth in either of them at all.They are simply 'faiths'.There are so many other faiths that even Christians and Islamists reconize as having no truth in them,calling them 'Delusions'.
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
IF GOD EXISTS.He exists outside of nature because nature cannot create nature. Astrophysics point to a singular immensely powerful entity or "vehicle" creating the universe but by its nature it cannot exist in the universe just as an architect cannot be a wall in his house.
We cannot say whether or not god exists because he is outside of nature. You speak from an all knowing vantage point assuming you know a truth that cannot be known. It is entirely possible and impossible.
THEFEDERL1ST 5 months ago
@THEFEDERL1ST If God xists it is certainly not the god of the ancient Isrealites, who is no more of a real god than the Great God Zeus, the God who brought order to Chaos.That much I 'm sure of.I speak from the vantage point of having a small knowledge of someof the various gods.I am not a scholar.I am not all knowing.I do not assume a truth that cannot be known.I refute that which can be refuted.That which is not Truth.
GARYWERSLEY 5 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
You admitted that you only have 'small" knowledge of "some" of the various gods, but make such an absolute statement that the biblical God certainly does not exist?.... Until you study and become more knowledgeable of the bible then you can make such a statement. Christianity has not been defeated because of it is truth. You cannot make something that is true become a lie and that's what you and a bunch of other skeptics try to do...so ignorantly. It's such a shame, too.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 I put the Biblical God in the same place as all other Gods.On the shelf marked 'Mythology', were it belongs.I make the same statement about them all.I do know more about the Biblical God than all the others.Christianity has been defeated bcos it has lost its power.In times past it was a powerful persecuting religeon but now it has disintegrated into so many sects,and is harmless.If we want peace on earth we need Islam to go the same way.All Divine revelation is nothing but Delusion!
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
We can all see what you try to do with the biblical God, but we also see it's out of ignorance. You think Christianity is about gaining power and persecuting others? That shows complete ignorance to biblical Christianity, which I'm not surprised since you admittedly have no knowledge of. You're confusing Biblical Christianity with the Roman Catholicism. If you cannot tell the difference then do yourself a favor and research before you make such ridiculous statements.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 We see Mad Islamists practicing the same religeous intolerence today that Christians did in times past,guided by scripture.Christian scripture is much the same as it ever was,so if Christianity became more powerful there is always the possiblity that history would repeat itself.Christianity is based mainly on Judaism,which is also an intolerent religeon.The other root of Christianity,Pagan Platonism,is the more rational side,which seeks to unite all mankind as brothers and sistersinLove
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GARYWERSLEY (I left two comments and you didn't respond to one of them)
Let me ask you something since you think you know what you're talking about. Have you heard of hermeneutics? Have you heard of taking passages out of context? Have you heard of the idea of "false teachers" who try to use the name of Jesus for their gain? The bible talks about this. If you were to research more than you wouldn't make those kind of statements. Do you research, man... You don't know what you're talking about.
2row777 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Secondly, Mythology cannot be proven by history, science, or prophetic accuracy. There are no eye witness of Zues or any other "god" that has been created by man. Rather the one true God created the universe and chose to use the bible to reveal Himself. The accuracy in history, archaeology, science, and prophecies in the bible cannot be refuted. And if you dare try to refute the bible's credibility then expect me to respond. It's your choice.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The story of Jesus cannot be proven by history.Fact. Prophecy is the language of fools.Fact.The belief in Zeus and other 'Gods' had many followers.They were people of 'faith',just as Jew,Islamists, Christians and Mormons are today.The God of Moses was never real,it was just as much a Delusion as all the beliefs.I seek to know the Creator but I do not find any evidence that the Jealous God of Moses is it. Probly most of the events in the Bible can be refuted and should be. I seek TRUTH!
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
You still ignored my comments (the same way you do with facts).
Fact #1: Jesus can be proven historically. Here are 9 secular (non-Christian) sources: Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus. You have been refuted, dude. Lets go on with your next false statement.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The passage in Josephus is considerd by most scholars to be a forgery.Others that you mention tell us that the 'faith' of the cult of Jesus xisted at the time of their writing.They do not confirm the actual xistence of the man Jesus.Only of the faith.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"the passage in Josephus" - Have you read it yourself? Have you studied it yourself? Or did you go to some anti-biblical website and just take their word for it? I can tell you have not read any of the things I mentioned. Those secular sources have significant amount of evidence of the existence of Christ. Some of them actually write against Him and his followers, but nonetheless still prove his existence.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 I have read Josephus.Even I, not being a scholar, can see that it is an obvius insertion.It does not fit with the stlye ofother chapters.It is as if written by another hand.Josephus mentions many people in much detail, but Jesus gets only 1 chapter.Saying he did many wondrous things.In my nonscholarly opinion, I say it is an insertion.In the opinion of most scholars, it is an insertion, put there by a Christian forger.Some scholars even give a name to that Christian Forger.....
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
What have you read of Josephus and how much did you read? Which scholars are you referring to and which of them named the supposed "Christian forger?" Even taking out the supposed Christian "insertions", there still remains the fact that Josephus wrote of Jesus as a real person. The Arabic translations of his writing are a lot more plausible to both Christian/secular scholars. Whether he considered him to be miraculous or not, he still writes of a real man --Jesus Christ.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Josephus goes into much detail about Jesus the brigand,giving his life story and xploits.Same with Jesus the High priest.A couple of other Jesus's are mentioned,in some detail.The Jesus of the bible has only a small chapter.Not much at all, considering at least the events of the Crucifiction.No mention of the sky darkening the curtain torn or the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem, not to mention the virgin birth or the star in the eastfeeding of the 5000 raising the dead curing
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
You're missing the point when a Christian refers to Josephus or any other secular source. The point is that Jesus is noticed in history. The writers/sources may not agree with what he said, but do acknowledge that He existed. Even if you take Josephus out of the picture, you still have other secular and Christian historians to deal with that have strong evidence of Jesus's existence.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 There were many Jesus' but non of them fit the description of the Jesus of the Bible,who was born of a virgin,during the reign of the Roman Emporer Augustus, and was crucifeid died and rose again.Most scholars regard the passage in Josephus as being being an insertion.Other later historians tell us that the cult of Jesus xisted,which is confirmation of the 'faith' but not the man.The 'faith'has been nticed thru history,but not the man.There is not even strong evidence for Paul...NJBC.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
You keep saying most scholars, but haven't named any. If you say "most" then I expect you to give me a good amount of names. The idea of Jesus not existing is new. Many skeptics throughout history acknowledged his existence, but denied his divinity and such, but not his existence. So of course it won't fit the biblical description of Jesus by these people, but it still proves his existence. Read more commentaries besides two.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Of the scholars who have studied the subject of the xistence of the Jesus of the Bible,some say he did xist but most say there is no evidence for his actual xistence.Some say that some1 like him 'may' have xisted at the supposed time of the Jesus of the Bible and that iswhat Christians grab hold of as evidence for the xistence their hero.But there is no evidence that the vague some1 who may have xisted at the supposed time ever performed any miracles or the resurrection ever happened.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
So now, instead of "many" scholars, you're saying some. And now, finally, you're acknowledging that there are other scholars who disagree with you. There is evidence and I've already given it to you. Your reply: You supposed one thing, you guess on others, and you're not sure on many things. You only have used 1-2 commentaries, claim to research, and do not back up anything you say when asked to. You're the one who has no evidence, dude.
2row777 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
So now, instead of "many" scholars, you're saying some. And now, finally, you're acknowledging that there are other scholars who disagree with you. There is evidence and I've already given it to you. Your reply- You supposed one thing, you guess on others, and you're not sure on many things. You only have used 1-2 commentaries, claim to research, and do not back up anything you say when asked to. You're the one who has no evidence, dude.
2row777 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
And when you say things like "most" or "many" scholars without naming any of them, it makes your arguments look weak (which they are and have been). Back up what you say when asked to.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 What should have been noticed in history,if it had happened,is the 'Slaughter Of the Innocents',allegedly on the order of Herod,who,Josephus tells us,was a cruel and and vicious ruler.He relates many instances of Herods cruelty,but on Mat 2:16,Josephus is silent.So also are the other gospel writers.Such an event would surely be recorded by all of them,if it had happend?
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
Comment removed
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
This is part 1 of the video series. Watch it if you have time: youtube /zrRQqYGf4O0.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 It is thought that the forger of the passage in Josephus refering to Jesus was Eusebius,1 of the early Church Fathers,also the man who wrote the history of Christianity up to his time,AD315.Other historians do not mention the events of the Crucifition,sun blotted out all the earth in darkness earthqakes.It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny,who,in laborious work recorded all the great phenomena of nature,but seem to have missed these amazing worldwide events..?
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"the forger...was Eusebius" That's typical for a skeptic to say, but what evidence do you or they have that he forged it? Is this now an accusation game? Just guess who might have supposedly inserted something into Josephus's writings? Is this what your research is based off of?
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 I know it does'nt look good, the 1st historian of Christianity probly being a forger,according to the scholars. If true then what does that say for everyhing else that this man has ever written? Eusebius also wrote the history of his 'great friend' Constantine the Great, who,other historians tells us,was a Tyrannical ruler,who claimed to have a vision, telling him to 'conquer in the sign of the cross'.This is were Christianity adopted the idea of burning books,later xtended to people...
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY Eusebius. Life of Constantine, lib 1v.c 63.
"Constantine alone,of all the Roman emperors;was beloved of God,and hath left us the idea of his most pious and religeous life as an inimitable xample for other men to follow,at a humble distance".
Other hstorians of that time tellus that Constantine murdered various members of his own family,aswell as others who may have upset him for various reasons,b4 his cnvrsion.It does appear that he may have adopted Christianity for Political reas
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@2row777 Eusebius was writing AD315.He was the first person to mention the chapter in Josephus.Earlier writers had scoured Joshepus themselves in order to validate their faith,but could not find any mention of Jesus the Christ.It seems to have only been noticed by Eusebius.That chapter has been considered a forgery almost from the time that it was wrote by Eusebius.Not much guessing about it.All the evidence is there.Eusebius wrote a lot of stuff is considered highly by Christians.He was a frger
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Fact 2) Fulfilled prophecies are just one of the few ways to prove that the biblical God true. There is not one false prophecy made by God in the bible, but rather many fulfilled prophecies. And they can be proven historically, too. Go to 100 prophecies org.
Fact 3) Most of the events in the bible have actually been proven to be true. There are thousands of archaeological digs that prove the bible's accuracy.
Fact 4) Obviously, you don't do your research.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Isaiah is probly speaking about the situation that the Jews are in at the time of his writing.The 'stumbling block' prhps refers to the Temple, which is in ruins.The suffering servant, prhps the remnant, and the few believers left. The virgin, who knows?Isaiah almost certainly was not speaking of Jesus conception.He would probly have been horrified at the Pagan idea of God sending down his son to teach mankind how to be civilised. Just as Islamists also find the concept too Paganish...
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"probably" "perhaps" "who knows" - You see why i say that you sound confused and clueless? You just took wild guesses at those passages. YOU HAVE NO IDEA what you are talking about, dude. STUDY! RESEARCH! If you need help, I already offered my assistance. Those specific prophecies and passages in the old testament explicitly refers to Jesus with out a doubt. Isaiah knew what he was writing when he wrote those prophecies.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 I think its good to speculate.Think about things.Have ideas.Hypothesies.I am not certain about much.I do my research,not on the internet but in a library.I feel that I should say probly perhaps who knows, because I may not be sure.Something to think about.I am not a scholar.I do not claim that what I say is fact but just my opinion, based on what I have understood from what I have read.I think that Isaiah is talking about the political stuaiton of the Jews at the time of his writing...
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
Comment removed
2row777 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Well, as a Christian who takes studying seriously, I'm encouraging you to study the context given in Isaiah. And to do more research on the names I've given you in earlier comments. Both secular and Christian historians/scholars acknowledge the existence of Jesus and only a handful deny it. There are even writing of the early church fathers who were discipled by some of the apostles! The information is out there, you just have to sincerely be open to it.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Who were the early Church Fathers and where were they educated?The information is out there!Perhaps they,and the compilers of the gospels lied,for the best of reasons,to promote their faith,of which they were probly quite sincere,but probly misguided in their beliefs.The claim to have met with the apostles is much like Pauls meeting with the risen Christ,unverifiable.Same as Joseph Smiths claim to have had a vision in which he met the patriarchs,Jesus and God.Unferifiable,not TRUTH.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
If you truly want to learn about the church fathers, message me. So far I've given you answer, but all you have done is give your opinions and weak resource material. If what you're saying is true, then that means all the church fathers that existed in the first few centuries had to have the same lie, all be consistent with one another over the hundreds of years, get rid of any contradictory documents, and then many tortured/killed for what they thought was a lie? C'mon now...
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Paul,if he xisted,was probly a breakaway from an already xisting cult of Jesus.He is writing to already xisting churches,with deacons bishops teachers churches congregations scriptures,"whose faith was already known of all over the world".He rejects Judaism and promotes another religeon that "has been hidden from the ages",implying that his new faith is in fact,ancient wisdom.Just as there were many sects in Judaism so it was inCult of Jesus.many different versions of the Jesus story...
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Prove that Paul did not exist before you start making statements that imply that. People like you don't seek truth, but only pick at things you do not want to believe in. I could tell from what you wrote about Paul that you probably have not read the New Testament. You have no idea why Paul wrote what he wrote. NO IDEA.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The letters of Paul were wrote by persons unknown,according to The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,1991ed.I cannot prove that he did not xist,but,again, the scholars tell us that Paul did not write some,prhps any,of the letters that bear his name.I have read the NT.We only have the Bible as evidence that Paul xisted,his own letters.He is mentioned in Acts but again,we do not know who wrote Acts.Thought to be Luke, but he tells us at Luke1:1,that he was not witness to events he relates.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"according to the NJBC" I have told you to look into more commentaries than this one. Obviously, the one you are using is joke. Most commentaries do not say that I can prove it to you. I already gave you commentaries to look into and the good thing is that most of them are free online. Your only use of NJBC is weak.
"Again, scholars tell" You keep saying scholars (plural) but do not have any support to this. You haven't mentioned any, but on the NJBC which is a flawed commentary.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 If I want to know anything about Christianity I go straight to the 'fountainhead', which is the Vatican.NJBC1991 is approved of by the Pope,and you can't get anymore Christian than that.Flypage tells me,"This commentary is named after St.Jerome,the foremost Scripture scholar among the Church Fathers,a pioneer in biblical criticism."Dedicated to Pope Pius X11,and Pope Paul V1,"who Defended and Solidified Progress in These Studies during and after the Second Vatican Council".(Their caps.)
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"approved by the Pope" Do you honestly think that matters? That actually shows you that you SHOULD NOT trust it. Only a Roman Catholic would approve of such a horrid commentary. Even the idea of a pope is not found in the bible, but was originated in 500AD. That's not Christianity at all. Use different commentaries, you'll see a huge difference and you'll realize that Christianity is not all about "power" like you said in the beginning.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The root of todays Christianity is Roman Catholicism.The root of Roman Catholicism is Paganism.
I think we both agree.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"I think we both agree" No, because your idea of Christianity is not correct. Roman Catholicism is not Christianity! Do research on the Protestant Reformation. Read about those who tried to reform the catholic church before Martin Luther, but were killed.
2row777 3 months ago
@2row777 Perhaps those who were killed by earlier Christians was because of Exodus 34:10-17.The followers of Jesus demonstrate the Truth about the religeous intolerence inherent in all the faiths that come from the God of the ancient Isrealites. The God of Moses.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Perhaps I was right about you being ignorant and not wanting to learn truth.
Perhaps you did not read my last comments.
Perhaps you, like other ignorant bible-hating people just like to waste other's time.
2row777 3 months ago
@2row777 I do not hate the Bible or bible believers,neither do I hate the Koran or those who believe in it.I do seek to know Truth about the Creator as far as can be known.I do not believe there is truth in either of these books.That is not hate.You said that earlier Christians killed others who had different ideas than they about the bible.I try to find why that happened and I find it is written in scripture that nonbelief is evil. Koran says the same things.Something todo with Exodus 34:10-17?
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
I've already told you that I'm more than willing to discuss these things with you, but not on here. We can talk through private messages or email. It's your choice.
2row777 3 months ago
@2row777 Looks like you're not willing to discuss these things with me, even in private.You do seem to be ignoring me.I have PM'd some points, as requested,and the silence is deafening.As well as being difficult to interpret.
But then that seems to be the usual way with those who claim to 'know' Truth.
Only to be xpected.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY I'm not willing to discuss these things with you, although I sent you a message saying that I will get back to you yesterday? Although I told you twice that I'm extremely busy and won't be able to respond to all your points as quick as you'd like? Gary, I have a life, too. I have projects to complete, homework, and spend time with family. My schedule is jammed! I don't live my life on Youtube, sorry. Anyway, I already replied.
2row777 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Also, no, I haven't ignored you. I sent you messages out courtesy to let you know I'll respond within a certain time period (most 1-2 days). "But then that seems to be the usual way with those who claim to 'know' Truth." Is this how you win arguments? Publicly make your opponent seem like a coward although telling you that I'll get back to you asap? So if it's not on your timing, in your mind you've won? C'mon now...smh. Just respond to my message.
2row777 3 months ago
@2row777 I did not actually wish to make you seem like a coward, altho it did take you a while to get back to me. I have not 'won' any arguements. Just put my unscholarly opinions. Of which I am still pretty much certain, that no such person as the Jesus of the Bible ,or his apostles, ever actually xisted.He never lived,never died, never resurrected.Jesus was most probly just a story, just like all the other sons of other gods,whose followers had just as much faith as any1 who believed in Jesus
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@2row777 I have recieved your PM, and thanks for such an interesting and comprehensive reply. I will respond as soon as I can. I am 1 of those poor unfortunates that has 2 work for a living so I don't spend my life on Youtube either.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GARYWERSLEY
"approved by the Pope..." Do you honestly think that matters? That actually shows you that you SHOULD NOT trust it. Only a Roman Catholic would approve of such a horrid commentary. Even the idea of a pope is not found in the bible, but was originated in 500AD. That's not Christianity at all. Use different commentaries, you'll see a huge difference and you'll realize that Christianity is not all about "power" like you said in the beginning.
2row777 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Luke wrote Acts and it does not matter if he was not an actual witness to the things sing in the gospel of Luke. If you were to only READ Luke 1:1-4, you'd realize that Luke was a researcher. What he wrote was based of research from eye witnesses. This is not a problem. Everything he wrote was accurate. If you read Acts 1, you realize that Luke is carrying off from what he did in the gospel of Luke. His writing style and pretty much everything is the same. If you read you'll notice.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Luke tells us that he was not a witness to events he relates.He tells us he recieved the info from unnamed others.He does not tell us who they were.He claims that someone had at some point witnessed the stories he relates.At the time of writing,which is uncertain,the faith already xisted and was believed in by many,over a wide distance,or some version of it was.With churches bishops& scriptures.He researched an earlier written script,which we do not have now.He never talked to witnesses
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
You contradicted yourself: "He [Luke] claims that someone had at some point witnessed the stories he relates..." vs. "He never talked to witnessess."
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to tell you that you must get more research from other sources. Your NJBC is flawed and inaccurate.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The earlier written script that Luke researches and makes a copy of for his friend Theophilos,says that there were witnesses.He does not tell us who these witnesses were or when the script that he copies from was 1st wrote.He tells us that 'these things are already believed in among us'.He is not telling Theophilos any thing new.He re-afirms that which is already known by Theophilos and many others, b4 the time of his,Lukes, writing.This comes from King James Study Bible,Scofield ed.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
I'm not denying that which Luke wrote was believed already, but I'm denying your skeptical speculations that are not fully be backed up, at all. It's clear that Luke wrote that gospel and the book of Acts. He did the research for Theophilos. That's obvious and you don't need a commentary to find that out. It's so clear.
2row777 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY (Pt1)
Something you should know is that he authorship of Luke was never doubted until the 19th century!
ESV Study Bible: The "we" sections of Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16) assume the the author was a companion of Paul and participated in the events described in those sections..Paul's companions..(Col. 4;14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philem 21)...It is known that the author was from the second generation of the early chuch, was not an "eyewitness" of Jesus' ministry (Luke 2:1), and was a
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Luke address's his Gospel to "Most Excellent Theophilus", Most Excellent,which is a title.The faith that is already known of and believed in by many is patronaged by important titled people.Theophilus probly wanted his own copy of an already xisting scripture. Luke tells us that Theophilus has already been instructed in some prexisting scripture. That scripture being the foundation of his faith. B4 Luke writes his version of events. Which is what we have today in our version of the NT
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"Theophilos probly wanted his own copy..." See, you keep guessing. That's your problem. Luke says, "...to write an orderly account for you..." He does not say "to copy manuscripts for you" or anything like that. He says that he is going to "write an orderly account" for him so " that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Theophilos wanted certainty of the things not, not a copy of them. No "prexisting scripture" involved at all.
2row777 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY (Pt2)
...gentile (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6, says Luke was "by race a Antiochian and a physician by profession"; cf. Col 4:14). All of this confirms the tradition that Luke was the author of the third Gospel. (This was from the ESV Study Bible).
The writing styles are similar and by just reading through both of the books, you'd realize it's the same author, Luke.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History is questionable.He is thought of as being a forger,which brings into question everything he wrote.Luke is described as a physician,which is another way of saying Theraputae.
The Theraputae had a base at ancient Alexandria,from were wandering missionaries were sent out, to all the then known world,healing the sick and preaching their brand of religeon,which was very similar to what Christianity later bcame.Perhaps Pauls journeys were as 1 of them...Acts?
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"Eusebuis...thought of as being a forger" and this is in your opinion and those who hate the bible/Christianity. There is not one piece of strong evidence hat he added anything to Josephus's writings. There are only speculations, accusations, and mere opinions.
Paul's journey is clearly seen in Acts and his epistles. Again, your speculations are only speculated opinions, not facts nor hard evidence.
2row777 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Like I said before, if you sincerely want to know about these things then message me. I'll be more than happy to show you what I know about all of this. This could add to your quest to find "truth."
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Most scholars think that Matt and Mark are also copies, prhps copied of each other or copied off some other pre-xisting scripture. It does appear that all 3,Matt Mark Luke, all copied from the same pre-xisting document. Original author, time, place of writing unknown.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Concerning Matt, Mark, and Luke; No, again. Each account focuses on different things. The conclusion that they are copied from each other is weak thinking. All you have to do is read through them and compare each one and you'll realize that they weren't copied.
2row777 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Concerning Mark, Luke, and Matt.
No. The conclusion that those three gospels were copied from each other is based off of weak thinking. All you have to do is compare the three gospel accounts and you'll clearly see that they were not copied off each other.
2row777 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Okay man. We've gone back and forth on here for too long. If you want to have a proper debate about these things, message me. Don't bother replying on here. Message me, instead. I'll give you my email and we can have topical debates/discussions. Normally, I won't waste my time, but this helps me stay sharpened on issues like these. So please, message me instead. Don't reply to me on here.
2row777 3 months ago
@2row777
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers".
Charles Peguy.
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@2row777 Again,scholars tell us that at least 3 different people wrote the book of Isaiah, names unknown. Maybe not even Isaiah.Your guess is probly as good as mine about who did actually write it and what they were actually writing about.
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"3 different people wrote the book of Isaiah"
Well, if you were to only read rather than guess and takes these supposed "scholars's" guesses, you would find out that Isaiah was written by Isaiah when you read chapter 6. So far, you've just proved ignorance. I'm telling you...if you just use more than one commentary and your opinions, you'd find out a lot of truth.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The 'prophecies of Isaiah'.Scholars tell us that their were at least 3 writers in Isaiah,possible more,written over a long period of time.Thought to have been written by disciples of Isaiah,who continued to think and preach in the way of Isaiah after his death.We do not know who these other writers were.Or how many of them contributed to what is now our OT.We do know that OT as we know it was1st translated into Greek at Alexandria,about 200 BC.Prhps this is were those writers came from?
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Lastly, if you were to sincerely seek truth then you would not be so ignorant to facts and so arrogant when people try to give them to you. You don't seek truth. You sound confused and clueless. But...if you honestly want to know if the bible is true, I'm here to help. But that's only if you truly want to know. If not then I'll respect your decision. But just know that you ignoring a lot of evidence facts that point to the bible.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 Lastly,I do seek Truth,I do seek to know the Creator.I am not a scholar or xpert on the bible,but have read it a few times,as well as bible commentaries.I have come to the conclusion that there is not much Truth in the bible.Starting with Adam and Eve,thru to Sinai,the slaughter of the inhabitants of Caanan,whose main offence seems to have been that they worshipped a different God than those who invaded them.Eligah,another religeously intolerent prophet. etc Where isthe Love in all this
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
"I have read it a few times" - If you have honestly read the bible a few times then you would know a lot more than you do. Those wild guesses you took on Isaiah was obvious that you do not know the bible. I'd be surprised if you read half of it. And which commentaries have you read? Being as ignorant as you are, you won't find the Truth. You must humble yourself first and be willing to learn and accept things that you may not like.
2row777 4 months ago
@2row777 The New Jerome Biblical Commentary1991.New Bible Commentary3rded.Various eds of the bible.Some other books.I am not a scholar but I am searching for Truth.I have done and am still, "doing my research".Without the googles of "Faith".Just as I read Greek Mythology ...The NJBC tells me that Paul did not write all of the letters ascribed to him.Scholars tell us that persons unknown had wrote some of them.Perhaps even all of them.Acts is also thought to have an unknown author....NJBC....
GARYWERSLEY 4 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Two commentaries? Is that it? Look, I understand you're not a scholar, but resources are still available. There are well-known commentaries, such as: Matthew Henry's, John Calvin's, John MacArthur's, John Gill's exposition, and one of my personal favorite is the ESV study bible. There are more resources to the bible, too. You just have to look. Most commentaries will disagree with NJBC on the particular issue, that's for sure.
2row777 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GARYWERSLEY
"I have read it a few times" - If you have honestly read the bible a few times then you would know a lot more than you do. Those wild guesses you took on Isaiah made it obvious that you do not know the bible. I'd be surprised if you read half of it. And which commentaries have you read? Being as ignorant as you are, you won't find the Truth. You must humble yourself first and be willing to learn and accept things that you may not like.
2row777 4 months ago
If one reads the bible atheism becomes the most logical position. The gratuitous violence and immorality clearly points to human authors rather than divine inspiration. Religious belief was born of primitive ignorance much of which has now been dispelled. The world would be a safer place were there no religion in it.
max2right 6 months ago
Christianity is a part of the evolution of mans idea about god.It is no more of a True religeon than any other.Christianity evolves. changes. its beliefs now are not the same as in former times.B4 it was an article of 'faith' to believe in the Virgin Mary.1 was not a true Christian without all sorts of 'ideas' now rejected.Islam, on the otherhand, strives not to evolve, which is disintegration into various sects.As Christianity has done. Thereby losing its power.becomes irellevent.Forgotten.Gone
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
to say that Christians never question their faith is to be ignorant. they struggle with doubt all the time. in fact, everyone has faith and doubts...its a fact of life. "Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence." taken from wiki. i'm going to trust the scholars who have actually done research on this issue.
lightbrownpoop 6 months ago
@lightbrownpoop Christians should question the history of their faith.How did such things as the Spanish Inquistition happen? Burning of heretics and witches, Jews and Muslims?Just what does the bible say about non-belief? How can a God of Love create such an idea as Eternal Torment for those who don't believe?Somehow, that idea was probly a contributing factor in the choice of method of xecution.Slowly burning to death.As for the xistence of Jesus.No real evidence.Only faith required.Delusion..
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
There is no Love in Jealousy, there is only TYRANNY! Belief in the Jealous God (Exodus 34:14) whose name is JEALOUS, produces Fanatically Intolerent followers.
Proverbs14:30.'Jealousy is like a Cancer'. Proverbs 27:4.'Anger is cruel and destructive,but it is nothing compared to Jealousy'.
Religeon is the problem, not the solution.
GARYWERSLEY 10 months ago
The history of Christianity is relevant for todays culture so that we do not make the same mistakes as our forefathers.Look at all the Divinely Inspired torture and bloodshed that Christianity brought along with it and ask yourself the question,'What does the Bible say should be done with the nonbeliever'?
Christianity worships the same God of Blood as the Islamists.Their histories are both stained with the blood of nonbelievers.Hatred of nonbelief is inherent in both these faiths.
GARYWERSLEY 10 months ago
The belief in the God of the bible tends to lead some people to fanatisism. We can see this by looking at the history of Christianity and also by the behaviour of Islamic fundamentalists today.
This probaly happens because the God of the bible is a jealous God. Exodus 20.5 .
An intolerent God produces intolerent believers.
GARYWERSLEY 11 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY Yes, God is a Jealous God for what rightfully belongs to Him.
gotquestions*org/jealous-God*html
An intolerant God? Funny how you jumped from a jealous God to an intolerant God. ^_^
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY Shall we retrace the steps of atheism? Communism was based on atheism. And they killed everything within their reach: intellectuals, members of the army, the clergy. They killed people just for owing a Bible. Killing someone for owing a book? If someone kills you for owing Richard Fawkins's book, would that be alright? Atheism was a great plague. Shall we look at the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and North Korea?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Much violence and bloodshed has happened bcos of Hitler Communism Cambodia etc.
They were all failures bcos they tried to force their will onto others.Much violence and bloodshed has also followed all the faiths that have come out of the worship of the Jealous God of the Bible. See Exodus 34:10-17. And still continues today in the form of Islamic fundamentalism.We should look at history and not make the same mistakes again.
Religeon is the Problem. Not the Solution.
GARYWERSLEY 10 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY "Religeon is the Problem. Not the Solution."
Really? Hmm... the compilation of the history of human warfare (Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod) documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict. So, what you ignorantly considered to be "most" really amounts to less than 7% of all wars.
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 I did not use the word 'most'. But if only 1 war was religeously inspired it would be 1 war 2 many.The history of Christianity is soaked in blood.The Bible and Koran produce Fanatical followers who seem to have no problem killing off those who have adifferent opinion than them.History tells us that. It is FACT.Religeous people have tried to Impose their 'faith', just as some politicians and dictators have tried to impose their ideaolgy.With disasterous results for the human race.
GARYWERSLEY 10 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY Anything can produce fanaticism given the right circumstances.
Funny how I don't see you protesting against other of these ideologies.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Lots of things can produce fanaticism that is true. But if we know that some things have that effect on some people then we should not encourage it.If there is something that has had an influence on 123 different wars,as you say, we should be very careful about it. All the bloodshed and violence that has happened as a result of the Bible,or the Koran, happened bcos of the Holy Scriptures that Christians and Muslims believe in.
Religeon is the problem, not the solution.
GARYWERSLEY 9 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY You just admited that religion was not the problem, then you jumped back to your previous statement. Way to go.
Can you tell me how mainstream Christianity is causing those wars?
heritage*org/Research/Reports/1996/01/BG1064nbsp-Why-Religion-Matters
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Christianity has a similar history as Islam does. It believes in the same Jealous God as the Islamists.Deuteronomy is much the same as Sharia.Both these deluded faiths believe that they alone are the way to eternal salvation.This belief unfortunately produces religeous fanticism.Christianity has lost its power.In the past when it was 1 it was apersecuting religeon,just as Islam tries to be today.
Belief in the god of the ancient Isrealites has been a curse on the human race.
GARYWERSLEY 9 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY Did you even read the link I sent you?
People like YOU are a curse on the intelligence of the human race.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 I did not read the link you sent me.
People of 'Faith' are a Curse upon the human race.
GARYWERSLEY 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GARYWERSLEY "I did not read the link you sent me."
Well, then you can remain as ignorant as you want.
But don't come back to me saying I have no justification for my position.
"People of 'Faith' are a Curse upon the human race."
WHY? You sound like a broken record-player.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
Surely man can move forward, recognizing the past and make decisions based on whats right without having to have faith in Christ?
We can look back and see where we went wrong. And not make make the same mistakes again. We learn from xperience. Put our faith in fact.
Faith on its own is irrational. That much we know to be fact.
GARYWERSLEY 1 year ago
It is fortunate for civilisation today that Christianity has disintegrated into so many different churches. When it was one church, (RC), it was a religeously intolerent church. Christianity has lost its power now and that is why most of them are peacefulpeople. Christianity needs to split some more, as does Islam. A divided religeous belief is a weak religeon. Weak religeons make for a peaceful world.
Before acepting 'faith' check out the history of the religeon. Right to the beginning.
GARYWERSLEY 1 year ago
@GARYWERSLEY "Before acepting 'faith' check out the history of the religeon. Right to the beginning." I 100% agree with this. I don't understand WHY this is so hard to do this!! I would donate my kidneys to understand why is so hard to see if your faith is legitimate by reading history books. I don't understand why people still live in a delusion when the answer can be found even on wikipedia. And they say atheists hate and discriminate them ...
aditzzaaa 1 year ago
Friend, I was not pointing you to Religulous. I was pointing you to a brief commentary on the movie, on the channel wordonfirevideo.
Jugglable 1 year ago
Christianity is only relevant in determining one's mental health.
sweetsweatyfeet 1 year ago
@sweetsweatyfeet Including yours.
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by ignorant Bronze Age goat herders who knew little the real world in which they lived in. An example, and a rather poor one at that, of man's first attempt at philosophy, morality and law. Some of the stories in the bible are absolutely deplorable. I'll pass.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts Bronze Age goat herders wouldn't be able to pull something like this off without divine help. no other text throughout history has caused such devotion, while bringing hostility to others. whether you believe it's the actual word of God or not, it has and always will be the most intriguing piece of literature that will ever be composed.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Yes, I guess talking snakes, virgin births, parting mighty seas, genocidal war stories, burning bushes, mortal zombies, is something that only only be inspired through divine intervention. Yeah, it would really take a god to inspire men to write such crap. There's nothing intrigueing about this unless you have the prefrontal lobes of a primate. (People tend not to believe in facts, they're boring, but tell them a whopper lie and they're hooked for life) Don't be a sucker.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts Christianity is too queer to have been thought up by humans. salvation is a free gift through grace, no good works will do so no one can boast? looking at a woman with lust is sin? believing that Jesus Christ was resurrected and died for our sins grants us eternal life? love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you? it's to embarassing to have been made up. men (and you and i both know how us men think and act) wouldn't have included these outrageous things.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop well, "looking at a woman other than your wife with lust is a sin i meant". i believe thats what the scriptures say.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Man's imagination is boundless, especially when one group is attempting to control others through superstition. Naaah, this salvation malarkey is as old as the hills. In fact, Christianty adopted this nonsense from previous religions, so there's nothing really new here. Fortunately, you have the burden of proof to show these texts are the words of a god. Insofar, you've failed. It reads like man-made dribble. People can write such things, you know? Look at science fiction!
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts there were dozens of other messianic pretenders whoe lives and careers ended the same way Jesus' did. why would the disciples of Jesus have come to the conclusion that that his crucifixion had not been a defeat but a triumph, unless they had seen him risen from the dead? after the death of Jesus the entire Christian community suddenly adopted a set of beliefs that were brand-new and until that point had been unthinkable.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop No one saw anyone rise from the dead. Dead people don't rise alive again from the dead. Any account of the details of Jesus's alleged death were written generations after the act. The christian faith is based upon these stories. It's just a blood cult.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts i know this is pretty hard to grasp or believe in our scientific enlightment age, that a resurrection actually took place but there has been no alternate theory that has held any water to why the Christian church got started in the first place.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop A lie gets half way 'round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoopJesus was never real.There was no Ressuection. Christianity probly started in ancient Alexandria.It probly took off bcos of the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.Many Jews died in that war and many others where probly disilusioned with the old religeon,probly looked for some sort of sign from god, saw the Pagan faith of Christianity, decided that was it.
Jews in those days were very superstichious.Every single thing that happened, good or bad, was a sign from God. Delusion.
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY wiki Jesus Christ.....thats alot of information for a person who never even existed...it seems that you're the one who is deluded. why would wikipedia include a birth/death date, cause of death, nationality, ethnicity, home town, religion etc. of a person who wasn't even real? think about these things for a bit. and go to wikipedia...very few scholars question his existence. join the rational side...it doesn't mean you have to believe he was god. it'll just make you less ignorant.
lightbrownpoop 6 months ago
@lightbrownpoop Someone once said 'ingnorance is bliss'.For Jesus to be real for me everything that the bible says about him has to be true.Fact.Such as Divine birth,does many wonderous things,cruel death, resurrection,bodily ascent to heaven etc.Jesus was never anymore real than Adam and Eve,or the 6 days of Creation.All these things have to b taken on faith, just as Islamists and Mormons all have faith that their heroes were visted by angels sent by the God of the ancient Isrealites. DELUSION!
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion......
lightbrownpoop 6 months ago
@lightbrownpoop Jesus of Nazereth,the Saviour of the human race,never did any of those things.He was never real.His followers,people of faith,did some of those things.The religeon of Christianity did some of those things. But you forgot to mention some of the other things that have been done in the name of the Saviour, by some of those people of faith.Such as the Spanish Inquisition, religeous intolerence ,burning alive heretics and witches and various other such historical events thru history..
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY if you want to hear about the intellectual side for Christianity, read some Timothy Keller, William Lane Craig, CS Lewis or NT Wright. i hate these type of youtube arguments, they go nowhere. please oh please don't become of victom of phsycological arrogance which is the belief that everything contrary to what you believe must be wrong. the new atheists are bad for it. also, faith is holding on to what your reason once accepted as true despite your changing moods.
lightbrownpoop 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY ......and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times. --Philip Schaff
lightbrownpoop 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY that's pretty impressive for a man who apparently didn't exist.
lightbrownpoop 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY The issue in your statements is the repeated use of "probably." This indicates an acceptance of non-empirical belief, which thus would entail having a measure of faith in something you cannot prove. While on the other hand there are historically neutral accounts recorded of Jesus' existence. There are even Jewish records (outside of the Bible) supporting the existence of Jesus. Check out Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian and Flavius Josephus.
MrAudacious21 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrAudacious21 6 months ago
@MrAudacious21 Tacitus mentions the 'faith' of Christianity that certainly did xist at the time he was writing.The fact that the faith xisted does not mean that Jesus ever did.The small mention of Jesus in Josephus is thought by most scholars to be a later insertion.Forgery.The bible itself suggests to me that Jesus was never real.'Faith' was all that was ever required.Paul was writing his letters along time b4 any of the gospels were wrote.Qoutes other scriptures which we do not have today
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
@MrAudacious21 'Probably' is probly the best way to go.Use probabilities.I am not a scholar.I asess what I read and use my rational mind as much as pos.In all probability there was never any such real persons as Adam Eve , even Moses.There is no evidence for their ever having xisted.Even less evidence for the xistence of the God of the ancient Isrealites.Still being worshipped by so many deluded people.In so many different Faiths.Delusions.Tacitus wrote of the faith. Not of the real man.Probly.
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY Sir, I appreciate your response. Please provide me with the evidence that they did not exist. If you are unable to do so then your premise is just as much of a leap of faith as mine. How then would your conclusion be rational? Also, Concerning Josephus, that portion of the work is widely contested. At the very least, scholars only believe it be partially altered in phrases that would correspond with Christian formulae by a the copyist. Nothing to do with Christ's existence.
MrAudacious21 6 months ago
@MrAudacious21 I cannot prove Adam+Eve or Moses did not xist.I do not think they ever did.But then no-one can prove that they did,or even that Jesus did.It does not take faith not to believe in something,faith is required to believe in something that has no evidence for that belief.Such as the belief in angels and demons,or the resurrection.Or even the crucifixtion.No evidence, faith is required.When we look at other faiths we can say that they, of that other faith, are deluded.Misguided.Lost.
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrAudacious21 6 months ago
Comment removed
MrAudacious21 6 months ago
@MrAudacious21 I cannot prove that Zeus, the god who brought order to Chaos,never xisted,or his son Apollo,who was thought to have come to earth to teach mankind how to be civilised.I cannot prove their xistence or non-xistence,but millions of people had 'faith' that Zeus was the power behind all xistence and that his son Apollo had walked the earth, as a young man, teaching, healing,even probly raising the dead.But people of 'faith' did believe in these probly nonxistence Gods.Faith = Delusion.
GARYWERSLEY 6 months ago
@FaganRoberts if you'd like to have a private discussion on resurrection theories, let me know...i don't want to flood this page.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop The notion of human resurrection after death is not a theory. In fact, it's not even a hypothesis. It's what you call mythology. It's the examination of mythology that you wish to avoid embarrassment here. Which is quite understandable if I wanted to assert that, for example, Zeus was real. I would be laughed off YT. lol
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts nothing in history can be proven the way we can prove something in a labratory. every effort to account for the birth of the church apart from Jesus' resurrection flies in the face of what we know about first-century history and culture. if you don't short-circuit the process with the philosophical bias against the possibility of miracle, the resurrection of Jesus has the most evidence for it.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Apart from the four gospels, there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts wanna hear something shocking? if you deny Jesus' existence just because there's no contemperory historical evidence for him, you must also deny Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Nero, and various other roman empires. are you willing to take such a leap?
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop It's takes a remarkable leap of faith to believe mythologies are in fact true. Religion tenets are just articles of faith. People shouldn't take them seriously. There's no reason to think them true, unless mommy and daddy indoctrinated you as a child first to make you think them true. Some people cannot shake off things parents or churchs told them as a child. But the geographic Roman Empire is a historical fact.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@FaganRoberts the people were real, the places were real, the events were real. if they are all mythology then why have we discovered tons of artifacts mentioned in the Bible? /wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Just because we find human artifacts dating to the time the texts were written still in no way validates the miracle claims nor does it prove a god exists - sorry. Here again: Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. Mt. Ararat exists. Therefore Noah's biblical account of the flood must be true. The figures are myths and the events are fabricated. It just takes faith to think they're true.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop There is no evidence for the actual xistence of Jesus.There is even less evidence for the ressurection.There is not even evidence for the xistence of Jesus in the Bible itself.
GARYWERSLEY 9 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY If thats what u believe then I recommend u read up on the history of Christ, there is more evidence supporting the history of Christ than any other historical figure. If you deny that christ even existed then please deny the existence of aristotle, alexander the great and other such figures. Please read Richard Baukhams, Jesus and the eye witnesses and I think that may clear up some of you concerns.
learningcurveify 8 months ago
@learningcurveify There is no evidence for the xistence of the Jesus of the Bible, who was born of a virgin, did many wonderous things, was cruelly killed and rose again 3 days later.There is plenty of evidence for the 'faith' of Christianity.That certainly xisted, people did write about it.But that evidence for the xistence of the faith is not evidence for the xistence of Jesus.Anymore than saying that the 'faith' of the Hindu Chrishna xisted, therefore so did the real Son of God Chrishna.
GARYWERSLEY 8 months ago
@learningcurveify There is plenty of historical evidence of the faith of Christianity,but no evidence for the xistence of its supposed founder.Joshephus is an insertion.The Virgin Birth,performing miracles,cruel death, ressurection, never really happend. No evidence for any of it.No evidence even for the xistence of the god of the ancient Isrealites, who Christians claimed to be the Almighty,Father of their Hero,Jesus.No evidence for the Angel Gabriel or even Satan Himself. All just stories.
GARYWERSLEY 8 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY My friend I apologise for taking so long to reply. To say that there is no evidence for Christs existence is to deny the existence of any other ancient figure as they all are determined using standard historical methods so Im not sure why you believe that. please read the wiki page on the historicity of Jesus which I think handles the subject fairly, As stated before please read richard baukhams, Jesus and the eye witnesses
learningcurveify 8 months ago 2
@learningcurveify There is no evidence for the xistence of Jesus.Other historical figures may or may not have lived.What actually does matter is whether Jesus xisted or not.It does matter if he was born of a virgin, in the same manner as other sons of gods, did many wondrous things, in the same manner as othersons of gods, and died a cruel death, as other sons of other gods did, to be resurreected, and ascend to heaveny paradise, back with his Almighty Father,to be worshipped with him,as him.One
GARYWERSLEY 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY There is NO EVIDENCE, for the existence of GARYWERSLEY.
All we have are writings from someone that CLAIM to be him.
There is no other writings, from unbiased sources, that corroborate that such a person EVER existed.
It is my conclusion, that the so-called, "GARYWERSLEY" is nothing more than propaganda, by persons unknown for the sole purpose of trying to convince people that he is "real", so that people will listen to "his writings", thereby controlling them.
JoeShmuck35 8 months ago
@JoeShmuck35 it would not be difficult to find evidence of the xistence of Gary Wersley.Unlike Jesus, he is a real person. You will not be condemned to an eternity in Hellfire for not believing in his writing.He does not claim Divine authority for his ideas, just historical facts, as far as he can work out.
Also,Gary Wersley has no interest in propaganda,is not interested in followers,or trying to control anyone.
He is very concerned about mad religeous people trying to control him and others.
GARYWERSLEY 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY "it would not be difficult to find evidence of the xistence of Gary Wersley."
I see NO evidence of such a person, historically or otherwise. I see "writings" that "claim" to be from him, but as we all know, very little on the internet can be trusted, since anyone can "claim" they are anyone.
"Unlike Jesus, he is a real person."
His person-hood, has yet to be established. The writings seen, can be the rantings of one of his followers, or even a net bot.
JoeShmuck35 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY "You will not be condemned to an eternity in Hellfire for not believing in his writing."
The writer claiming to be Gary Wersley, has repeatedly demonstrated a comprehension problem, concerning biblical text. Constantly repeating errors, that are clearly refuted by evidence. This leads me to believe, "Gary Wersley" is actually a net bot, only able to regurgitate, programming data points and not actually "reason" through a debate topic.
JoeShmuck35 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY "He does not claim Divine authority for his ideas, just historical facts, as far as he can work out." He DOES claim to be Divine, in that he claims to have a BETTER knowledge of history, than professional historians. Almost as if he wants us to believe "He" was there. He is either claiming divinity, or psychic prowess.
This is what the "Gary Wersley" programmer wants people to believe about "him".
JoeShmuck35 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY "Also,Gary Wersley has no interest in propaganda,is not interested in followers,or trying to control anyone." This statement IS propaganda. If the GW program, is not seeking followers (Converts), why would the GW program spend SO MUCH time writing comments, on videos he (it) disagrees with?! This demonstrates a CLEAR agenda, to manipulate sophomoric people. It's is the epitome, of "control" through propaganda.
JoeShmuck35 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY "He is very concerned about mad religeous people trying to control him and others."
The Gary Wersley program, has demonstrated 0 evidence of anyone, religious or otherwise, trying to control "him". This last statement goes right along with the previous one....it is part of the propaganda subroutine, that the GW program inserts in all it's comments. The idea behind it is to instill fear, in the sophomoric reader, so they will trust GW, over the warning of the boogeyman, GW created.
JoeShmuck35 7 months ago
@JoeShmuck35 There is no evidence for the xistence of the Angel Gabriel,who came to the Virgin Mary and told her that she was to be pregnant,with the new messiah.The Annunciation.Luke 1:26.The very same Angel Gabriel who visited Mohamed,and told him God had chosen him to be the new prophet,to start a new religeon,bcos all the others where corrupt.There is no evidence for the xistence of the Angel Moroni,who told the prophet JosephSmith the same thing.It is my conclusion that Angels do not xist.
GARYWERSLEY 7 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY And again, I state, that there is as much (actually considerably less) evidence, that a person by the name of Gary Wersley, EVER existed. Of course, I'm using the same standards of measure, for "authenticity" that the Gary Wersley WebBot program uses. Under this WebBot's analysis subroutines, history didn't happen, because he (it) didn't witness it. Miles of historic documentation are dismissed, Cuz..he don't believe it! "Belief" in history, constitutes "faith",so, it didn't happen.
JoeShmuck35 7 months ago